Status of Women Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Andrea Silverstone]

The answer is absolutely yes. Sagesse actually has developed a program called Real Talk, which teaches informal supporters how to recognize domestic violence, empathize, ask the right questions and listen, because we believe that there are absolutely indicators that people can recognize that can identify coercive control, whether it's in a workplace setting, a family setting or even a community setting.

These are things like Carrie just talked about in her introductory remarks: someone getting incessant texts and those texts making them stressed out, someone constantly cancelling plans, or anyone who's unable to make decisions in their own best interest. However, I think that what's most important is that coercive control has to be identified through conversations in which you have to be able to ask the person, “Are you afraid?” I think that that's the very best way that we can actually ever identify whether or not someone is experiencing coercive control.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

As the ladies said earlier, this doesn't happen overnight. How does coercive control develop? Before getting married, you spend time with the person. There must be some red flags. What are they?

[Andrea Silverstone]

You would think so, and I wish that it was easy. I wish that coercive controllers had signs on their foreheads. However, I think that one of the previous speakers talked about trafficking and sexual exploitation, and really, coercive control in cases of intimate partner violence is no different. It's not like on the very first date someone, you know, begins to control or picks up their fist and hits someone. It's a very slow process. It is low level, and it is persistent. It is a pattern whereby, all of a sudden, one day.... It's a gradual and then sudden process where one day someone wakes up and realizes that they no longer have personal freedoms or are able to make decisions in their own best interest.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Those who engage in coercive behaviour are also intelligent enough to hide their game at a given moment.

Thank you very much for your answers.

Ms. Zaccour, thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts with us.

I have two questions to ask you.

First, I'd like you to come back to the example of other countries that we could learn from. We need to table serious recommendations that will have to be followed so that we can truly improve the situation.

In the university curriculum and at the bar, emphasis could also be placed on training interveners, judges, Crown prosecutors and even lawyers. What training should be developed for these people so that they understand clearly what coercive control is? They will be dealing with narcissistic perverts and all kinds of personality profiles.

How do we train people in the legal community?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

I'll begin by answering the second question.

In my opinion, it's very important to clarify that, at the moment, the law allows family courts to use the discredited notion of parental alienation. Even if we train these people well, it will never be enough. The law needs to be changed.

We heard from other witnesses earlier that survivors minimize the abuse they've experienced. This is absolutely true. However, the courts apply a theory that states that women exaggerate the abuse they've experienced. Of course, no one can be against training, but this didn't create the results we were hoping for.

We really hope the committee will recommend a change in family law because even if judges understand what coercive control is, the theory remains that what the mother says is not true. In any case, even if it's true, the child still needs to be forced to live with the father whether he has been convicted or not.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

In your experience, would you say that parental alienation is overused in our courts, in Quebec, for example?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Yes, that theory is almost always applied when a woman is a victim of violence, of coercive control. Almost systematically, the abuser claims that the problem is not that he is violent, but that she is alienating the children. Some 250 women's organizations as well as many women's centres have brought attention to that.

In the few seconds that are left, I could talk about Spain and answer your first question.

The Spanish government passed a law prohibiting the courts from using unscientific pseudo-concepts like parental alienation. The country has made it clear that doing so is unacceptable. Courts cannot make decisions based on that myth. That is what the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls recommended.

It's also what we are recommending the committee include in its report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, Dominique; the time is up.

Anita, you have six minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank both of you especially for the work that you do.

My first question is for Suzanne. You've spoken quite a bit about the myths and the stereotypes that underpin the legal system and the support systems. Could you maybe elaborate a little on specifically what those myths and stereotypes are?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Absolutely. Thank you for your question.

One of the myths is that society—and that includes family courts—needs to be very suspicious.

I'm sorry. You asked your question in English.

One of the primary myths is the idea that we should be very suspicious when family violence is reported. Whether it's the mother or the child reporting violence, or especially if the mother reports sexual abuse against the child, we should be very suspicious. The myth is that women lie and exaggerate and children can't be trusted. Also, women need to forgive. It's been years, and she's still angry and the child is still angry, so there must be something going on. It can't be the normal effects of domestic violence.

These are some of the myths that are very pervasive in our court system.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much for that. I will try to get back to you if I have enough time.

I also wanted to go to Andrea. You talked about the U.K. and the criminalizing and whether or not it might get used against victims. We heard in the previous testimony that there is a fear that by criminalizing coercive behaviour, it could be used against the very women who need the protection.

It sounded from your testimony, like you said, that this hasn't happened in the U.K. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on that.

[Andrea Silverstone]

The College of Policing has done some extensive research on how the law has been used and also to answer some of the concerns that I think were pre-existing before the law was there, as well as the other concerns that I think we have in Canada—about it being used against both victims and marginalized and racialized populations.

Their research has found that it actually isn't the case at all. If anything, the law has further protected those populations and hasn't been used in revictimization. I think it's a fear that does need to be addressed. I think that we have to understand why it hasn't been used in those negative ways that we're afraid of. I think it has to do with training and the funding put into training judges, lawyers and police officers.

I do think there is absolutely a way to enact the law without having a concern of victims being revictimized.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

It can't be done by itself; it has to be done with the wraparound. Is that what I'm hearing from you?

[Andrea Silverstone]

Absolutely. It has to be done with the wraparound.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You talked about your story about the bank and the role that bystanders can play if they are knowledgeable and if they're trained on how to identify....

We're a federal government. In terms of the tools we have in the federal jurisdiction, do you have particular recommendations on things that we could actually do in order to help with bystanders or in any of the other areas?

[Andrea Silverstone]

Absolutely.

We've put in a brief that was part of the report on the standing committee for justice around coercive control, with five recommendations, in particular for the federal government. Among those recommendations, we think there should be some sort of commissioner of coercive control or domestic abuse, who is able to infuse all parts of the federal government with a lens to understand coercive control and how it needs to be infused.

One of the previous speakers talked about trafficking and sexual exploitation. We have written a position paper for the federal ombudsman on victims of crime. It's exactly around that. That's something that some sort of commissioner like that would be able to do.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Could you send to our committee the same brief that you sent and maybe that report as well?

[Andrea Silverstone]

Yes, absolutely. I'll do that.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Okay, that's good.

I'll go back to Suzanne.

I want to delve a bit more into your recommendation. Your recommendation was that the federal government, the Minister of Justice, take action with regard to parental alienation. I don't know if that's under federal jurisdiction, but that's one question.

What would that look like? You mentioned Spain, but are there other countries that have done the same thing?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

We're asking for the federal government to amend the Divorce Act to say that accusations of parental alienation are not admissible, that judges can't consider them, and that they can't admit expert testimony on alienation. Of course, we'll then go knocking on the provinces' doors to do the same for unmarried partners.

In terms of Spain, obviously it's a different structure, but that's what they did. They said that it's not admissible and that children have a right to be heard. They also have a right to be respected in their opinion, because the parental alienation accusation is being used to say that although the child does not want to be with their father, I should force them to be with the father.

There are other countries that have gone the other way to say that we need to address parental alienation, not in terms of the accusations but to punish “alienating” mothers. They're now backtracking, because they've seen how sexual abuse of children and other violence is increasing and going undetected due to trying to punish mothers when there are allegations of violence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Next we have Andréanne. You have six minutes, please.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for sharing their views on this important topic.

It would be impossible to think that, by simply waving a magic wand, we could eliminate violence against women, which has become an epidemic.

I think we need to conduct this study with the utmost care and, as much as possible, look to what other jurisdictions are doing to form our opinions. I'd like to come back to that.

My question is for Ms. Silverstone and Ms. McManus.

You talked a lot about where things stand in other countries, and my fellow members asked questions about that.

As far as you know, are things going fairly well in countries that have criminalized coercive control, in spite of the concerns some had beforehand? Have any of the countries tried to walk back their legislation because they were sorry they criminalized the behaviour?

[Andrea Silverstone]

There are no countries that have walked it back. In terms of conversations in the research that we've done with lawmakers in the justice system as well as with organizations on the ground, there has been a sense either that the law has been a resounding success or that the law is good but just isn't doing enough in terms of the protections it can offer to victims. It's a good law, but there's not good enough support in order to enact the law.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That's interesting.

I'll wrap up this international overview with France, which you talked about as being an exception. However, I met members of France's National Assembly, and they said that France had not excluded coercive control and that the issue was being debated.

Have you heard that as well?

[Andrea Silverstone]

They do have coercive legislation of a form. It's called the About-Picard law. It's a very broad criminalization of coercive control that's not specific to intimate partner violence. It covers any type of coercion, so it's also been used in cases of cults and religiously coercive groups.

The discussions in France are to expand the law or to enhance their law specifically to lay it over intimate partner violence, but they already have that law. I think they just want to enhance it in order to make it more specific to intimate partner violence.