Justice Committee on March 25th, 2026

[Andrea Silverstone]

One thing we always say about coercive control is that fear is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I could have my partner show up at my work every single day at lunch with flowers, and that's a lovely act to me. If someone else's partner is coercively controlling and does exactly the same thing, what they're actually doing is checking up on them, making sure they're not having lunch with anyone they're not supposed to and they're eating what they're supposed to be eating, and checking what exactly it is they're doing.

When we say that something is measured by an objective standard, we're giving all the power to the perpetrator or the system to define what those actions are. What we need to have is a survivor impact framework that looks at behaviours and the impact of those behaviours on the individual, because what we're seeing, often, is only the tip of the iceberg of a pattern of behaviour being used to control somebody.

That's why I also recommend that the evidentiary standards include the ability to have expert testimony from witnesses regarding the impact on the victim, as well as other corollary information that can track things like that, like digital trails and that sort of thing.

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

Ms. Silverstone, my time is running out fast. I had two minutes, but I wanted to make sure that I remembered to ask you something. I asked you earlier about statistics or more detailed information on the distribution of intimate images. If you, Ms. Kim or Ms. Irons, as the case may be, have any information or details or additional statistics on this issue, I would really like to have them. If you could pass them on to us, we would appreciate it.

Ms. Kim, could you quickly share your opinion on the issue at hand concerning the subjective or objective fear test? Do you have any views on this?

[Rosel Kim]

Yes. Our position is to maintain the current wording of the criminal harassment offence and not to replace “subjectively feared” with an objective requirement. Our concern also rests with how objective fear might be assessed. That might fail to account for the power imbalance between the abuser and the survivor. There could be some social systemic biases influencing what an objective fear looks like.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Kim. I'm going to have to stop you there.

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

There are two more people left in this round, but we're going to cut into the second hour. I have Ms. Cody next, and then Ms. Nathan.

Are you okay if we go to three minutes each? Then we won't shortchange the second hour too much. Are you good with that?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Don't we have a vote at six o'clock?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We'll deal with that separately. That's another reason I want to move it along.

Ms. Cody, I'll give you three minutes. Go ahead.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. I also want to give my condolences to Ms. Irons on the loss of her daughter.

In my work on the status of women committee, I've heard concerning testimony that the trafficking and exploitation of seniors are increasing. I've also heard, through conversations with the chief of police in a northern community, that elder abuse is now ranking third, behind intimate partner violence and child exploitation.

My question is for Andrea Silverstone.

In your experience in domestic violence prevention, are you seeing coercive control impacting seniors or older women differently, particularly through dependency, isolation or financial control?

[Andrea Silverstone]

The answer is absolutely yes, for all the reasons you said.

I'm going to add another layer. In cases of elder abuse, particularly of women, sometimes the person who is the perpetrator is their child. It is much more complex to untangle that relationship, especially when a parent feels a lot of responsibility for the behaviour of their child and the relationship with their child. They can't separate themselves in the same way. Therefore, it adds another layer of complexity.

Then, of course, we have the additional vulnerabilities that seniors have in terms of their capacity for their own caregiving, depending on where they are in the journey of their lives.

Absolutely. It's for the reasons you said, as well as additional ones.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Do you feel that Bill C-16 gives enough tools to identify and respond to those situations?

[Andrea Silverstone]

Currently, as the bill is written, I don't think it does. We've suggested this in our brief.

Essentially, what we're asking is that one of the sections say that, for the purposes of the section, “personally connected” includes relationships of dependence and trust, whether or not the persons cohabitate or are related by blood or marriage.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'd also like to ask Ms. Kim this. From a legal perspective, do you see any gaps in Bill C-16 when it comes to protecting seniors, particularly in cases of coercion or financial abuse that may not fit traditional definitions of intimate partner violence?

[Rosel Kim]

I think those gaps certainly exist, but I'll just repeat that I think there need to be supports for seniors that would allow them to get to a safer situation, beyond criminal law reform.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Ms. Silverstone, are there barriers that might make it harder for seniors to access these protections?

[Andrea Silverstone]

Right now, based on how the piece of legislation has been written, it doesn't include seniors, because it has to be an intimate partner relationship. It only includes seniors who are in an intimate partner relationship, which is why the definition needs to be broadened, because we know that seniors are often in relationships of dependency and trust: sometimes with a caregiver who might be their child, sometimes with a caregiver who might be their partner, which this legislation would cover, and sometimes with someone who's been hired. In all of those cases, there's dependency and trust, and elders need to be considered and protected. That is not currently broad enough under this piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Silverstone and Ms. Cody.

Ms. Nathan, we'll go to you for three minutes.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses. Especially, Ms. Irons, I want to give you my condolences and commend your bravery.

My first question is for Ms. Silverstone.

Sagesse has developed a reputation for working not just with survivors but with the broader ecosystem around domestic violence prevention, including in schools, workplaces and community organizations. Your organization works extensively on behaviour change programs for those who perpetrate domestic violence. How important is it that legislation like Bill C-16 is paired with intervention supports, not just for survivors but for those at risk of causing harm? If you have any recommendations around that, you could give them now.

[Andrea Silverstone]

Thank you so much for this question, and thank you for looking at this issue as a broad issue.

One of the things that we say at Sagesse is that domestic abuse and coercive control are a whole-of-society issue. There are the people who are harmed, the people who are using harm and then the family and friends who are witnesses to it. The ecosystem that we take care of has to be the ecosystem of all those people. If we don't serve those who are harming, those who are harmed and the informal supports, we're not fully addressing this issue in the way we need to.

Ms. Kim has talked about how we need to have non-legislative responses. I absolutely agree, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think we have to have legislative responses, and then we have to have really robust systemic responses for every part of society that's impacted by this issue. I also want to mention that children are a part of that as well.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Thank you for that.

I also know that your organization serves a diverse range of individuals across Alberta. The experiences of coercive control can look very different depending on one's cultural background, immigration status or socio-economic circumstances.

In your experience working directly with communities, how important is it that legislation like Bill C-16 is implemented alongside culturally sensitive supports? Are there populations that you believe this bill may have difficulty reaching? You can also talk a bit about the first nations, if you want.

[Andrea Silverstone]

What I'll say is this. We have an issue across Canada in that your postal code will often determine the level of service you get. It's not an issue with this piece of legislation; it's a Canada-wide issue.

We work across Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I would suggest that we see a very big difference in both the effectiveness of our programs and the response between urban and rural centres, because there are fewer services available in rural centres. I would also say that we see a difference when we work with indigenous clients or clients from ethnocultural communities because of access to services, as well as access to justice based on geographic issues. If you don't have Internet in the place where you live or you don't have fresh running water or somewhere to put your head at night, those are all massive issues.

Is this bill going to solve that? No. Do we still need to solve those problems? Yes, but I think that this bill, if paired with an understanding that we still need to be working on all of those issues, and also recognizing that we need robust training and services to be able to create equity no matter what your postal code is.... That's what we should be looking at.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Silverstone.

Ms. Nathan, thank you.

Thank you to all three of you for coming today and participating in this important discussion about Bill C-16.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for just a moment or two. We already have the next panel of witnesses queued up, so we don't have to stop for much time. Preferably, stay in your seats.

I'll thank the witnesses again, and they can sign off now.

We'll suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'd like to call the meeting back to order.

We'll get going quickly here with our second panel of witnesses.

We have, from the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, president; from Humane Canada, Kerri Thomson, manager, justice and legislative affairs; and from Rise Women's Legal Centre, Vicky Law, executive director.

You've all had your sound test completed.

Thank you for coming.

We're going to do opening comments, followed by questions. We'll give each of the witnesses up to five minutes for their opening statements. After all three have finished, we'll go to questions.

Ms. Law, you were nodding your head in agreement, so I'm going to start with you.

[Vicky Law, Executive Director, Rise Women's Legal Centre]

Thank you very much, Chair and committee members.

My name is Vicky Law. I am a lawyer and the executive director of Rise Women's Legal Centre. We deliver free family law services to women and gender-diverse individuals in B.C., specializing in supporting survivors of family violence. Our organization conducts original research into family violence and the legal system, and provides ongoing training to law and social work students and legal professionals across B.C.

With my limited time today, I want to focus my remarks on the potential criminalization of coercive and controlling behaviour. My comments originate from Rise's joint written submission with the West Coast LEAF Association, a B.C.-based legal advocacy organization working toward gender justice through litigation, law reform and public legal education. Our submissions were provided to the Department of Justice in October 2023.

Before I dive into the criminal offence, I want to share that B.C. has included a definition of family violence in our family law legislation since 2013 that recognizes non-physical forms of violence, including coercion. We have also seen amendments to the Divorce Act in 2019 to include a new legal definition of family violence that specifically includes coercive and controlling behaviour. Therefore, family law in B.C. has preceded criminal law in identifying controlling and coercive behaviour as unacceptable and harmful.

Despite the expanded definition of family violence, which has been in place for over 10 years in B.C., we continue to see courts, lawyers and law enforcement struggle to meaningfully expand their view of coercive and controlling behaviour beyond single incident-based physical violence. We continually see the minimization of non-physical violence. Survivors have shared that they have experienced death threats or threats causing bodily harm, which would attract a criminal response, but are often minimized as part of a breakup. We have heard many legal professionals hold the common but false belief that violence ends upon separation and, as a result, safety concerns are no longer present.

In order to have effective laws to prevent further intimate partner violence, the creation of new criminal offences and new legal definitions requires difficult and systemic work to address pervasive misconceptions, myths, stereotypes and biases. We encourage this government to adopt legislation that prohibits all forms of myths and stereotype reasoning. Dr. Kim Stanton, who recently completed a systemic review of B.C.'s treatment of sexual and intimate partner violence in the legal system, recommends that the British Columbia government consider “the approach taken in Québec's Bill 73”, which explicitly lists six factors that are presumed irrelevant where allegations of sexual or spousal violence are present. We endorse the approach that these factors are important to consider and to adopt in legislation in order to prevent myths and stereotype reasoning.

Coupled with false misconceptions, coercive control requires a radically different approach to understanding violence. It requires police and legal system professionals to recognize and assess subtle patterns occurring over long periods of time, rather than focusing on individual incidents of assault. This shift requires ongoing and widespread education, including significant commitment to training legal system participants.

I have heard Minister Fraser addressing the need to train law enforcement on the evolving use of technology to harm victims of violence, such as the use of electronic monitoring and deepfakes. It is our position that training on coercive control and the dynamics of intimate partner violence is equally important to fully comprehend the safety risks for survivors and their children. This recommendation is supported by Dr. Stanton. While her report is focused on B.C.'s legal system, I would encourage this committee to consider Dr. Stanton's recommendations when reviewing this bill and any other criminal offences related to sexual or intimate partner violence. Dr. Stanton encourages police officers to reframe their approach from “What charges can be laid here?” to “How can I keep them safe?” This is a reference to the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission.

History has shown us that we cannot create new laws without a wider investment in education and services. We have seen situations where a perpetrator is charged or even convicted with an offence related to intimate partner violence, and the perpetrator went on to commit femicides against previous intimate partners. This happened in the Renfrew county triple femicide of 2015. Earlier this year in B.C., a woman was murdered, allegedly by her former partner, despite there being court orders related to domestic violence.

Following recommendation 12 of the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, we encourage the government to establish an expert advisory panel prior to finalizing any legislation relating to coercive control—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop there, Ms. Law. We're tight on time. That's the five minutes, but there'll be—

[Vicky Law]

I'll just say, for a more thorough discussion, please refer to our submissions that were provided to the Department of Justice in October 2023.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Thomson, we'll go to you for up to five minutes.