Status of Women Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Louise Riendeau]

Yes, we see that some women seeking assistance from shelters sometimes decide to go back to their violent spouse because they can't find safe and affordable housing where they can continue to feed, dress and raise their children. Those are major challenges. Every day, since the housing crisis got worse in Quebec, we've seen women staying in shelters for longer periods of time. That leads to other problems and prevents more women from accessing those shelters.

Consequently, efforts must absolutely be made to address women's situations and economic self-sufficiency; they must be provided access to jobs that allow them that freedom. Work also has to be done to identify the signs of control, such as spouses who urge women to leave their jobs or deprive them of access to the couple's financial resources. Those are also things that must be detected if we want to help women.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Next, I'd like to invite Anita to ask questions.

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

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses. The testimony today has been extremely helpful, not only in discussing how we can remedy this, but also in what exactly it is. I think we've skipped a little in this committee from what coercive control is to what the government can do, to what the justice system can do and how we can educate, but we haven't actually put on the record exactly what it is we're talking about. We've had witnesses here to talk about financial and economic abuse, about physical violence against women, girls, non-binary and gender-diverse people, but what exactly is coercive control?

Before you answer that, specifically right now, to Madam Riendeau and Madam Barrette, you handed out something. I just glanced at it and found it very useful. I hope you will table it so that it becomes part of the official documents of the committee. It talks about monitoring and interrogation, threats, sexual violence, gaslighting, financial abuse, spiritual violence, harassment, humiliation, abuse using technology, blaming, physical violence and isolation. These are things that if you know people who have experienced it, or if you have personally experienced coercive control, you would know instinctively but would not necessarily be able to articulate it or even to describe it, particularly to judges and others.

I'll give you a few minutes to put on the record what exactly we are talking about with coercive control.

[Karine Barrette]

Coercive control is ultimately a continuum of tactics, strategies and manifestations of violence and exploitation designed to terrorize or dominate the victim and deprive her of her rights. As another witness mentioned, there really is an intention to hide behind that. It's often done gradually and surreptitiously by a partner or former partner. It's also repeated over time.

Once you acquire a clear understanding of coercive control, you won't confuse it with protective behaviour because you see the intention behind it. You don't confuse it with a squabble or dispute. Coercive behaviour sets in over time. It's a process of taking control, not a loss of control, and that control may be exercised in many ways.

We referred to the tool that we use to cite examples, but that's not all there is. A perpetrator of violence will at times use a type of manifestation or tactic, but if that no longer works and the victim wants to take back power, he will unfortunately use another tool in the tool box and, in some instances, resort to physical violence.

A coercive control situation can also arise in a relationship where there's never any physical violence because it won't be necessary. Victims who often find themselves in this kind of situation don't always know they're experiencing coercive control. We've developed a tool for victims, a booklet entitled Ce n'est pas de l'amour… c'est du contrôle. Some victims have told us that, when they consulted the resources and came across the words “domestic violence”, they skipped over them because their partner had never been violent with them and had never touched them. However, it's a eureka moment when they read our booklet.

Every time we contact the media, print or otherwise, to discuss coercive control, we get calls and emails from people who tell us that's what they're experiencing. They tell us that they thought they were losing their minds, that their partner had told them they were overreacting, that they were lying or that they had a mental health problem. Their partner told their family that they were too sensitive. Now they realize that this is what they're experiencing and that their partner is spinning a web around them. Since physical violence isn't always in the picture, it's harder for victims to realize the situation they're in.

The more informed legal stakeholders are in this regard, the more they can play a watchdog role and be able to inform victims. Some instances may not even involve a criminal process; it may be an immigration or family law process. It may involve notaries. It's important for everyone to know that. That's how we make people see what was previously invisible; we do it for the victims.

[Louise Riendeau]

I would like to add that we wanted to create tools for all legal stakeholders to help them ask the right questions. Those who work in family law must be able to document coercive control. Those who work in immigration law must be able to perceive the specific ways that spouses use to control their vulnerable partners.

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

I noted that our other witnesses both talked about education as being very important.

What you're describing talks about intention and a pattern, which doesn't really bode well in terms of the judicial system, the criminal justice system.

I'd like to start with Professor Koshan.

You said that criminalizing is probably not a good idea, but could you talk about the education component?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Sadly, Anita, your five minutes are up.

I would welcome that testimony to be added, but perhaps somewhere else in the next round.

Andréanne, you have two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Riendeau and Ms. Barrette, continuing on from what you just said, it's not because there isn't always any violence that it doesn't always hurt, and it's not because the violence comes in the form of coercive control that it can't lead to femicide. I think that's the reason we're so interested in this issue. If you have any comments to make on what I just said, please feel free.

I'd also like to go back to an aspect that hasn't received a lot of attention today, and that is Bill C-332. You discussed it in your preliminary remarks, and you said you were in favour of it.

I recently attended a conference on violence against women. It was held in my region, and the groups in attendance were really interested in the bill. However, some changes should be made to it because, as it's been drafted, it couldn't be used to solve all problems, even those involving coercive control. Do you have any proposals to offer us concerning the bill?

[Karine Barrette]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to your first comment: that it's not because there isn't always any violence that it's not dangerous. According to one U.S. statistic, in one third of domestic homicide or attempted domestic homicide cases, there was no history of physical violence.

So when you train police officers, you tell them they don't have to wait for physical violence or assault to occur for there to be a threat. That's a very important factor.

As regards Bill C-332, we're definitely in favour of it. We had a number of recommendations that we wanted to see incorporated in the first draft of the bill. We also had a chance to present those recommendations when we testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The final version of the bill incorporates most of our recommendations. One thing is certain: The bill and the criminalization of coercive behaviour won't be enough. We can't simply criminalize behaviour and hope to solve the problem as if by magic. Essential conditions must be laid down, as we mentioned in our opening remarks.

[Louise Riendeau]

I think we definitely have to discuss the training of professionals. There have to be enough resources for them to incorporate this in their new practices. We need to increase public awareness. We have to consider how to prevent the potential adverse effects of putting coercive control in the hands of the courts by discussing the matter with victims and marginalized groups. Consequently, a series of measures must be put in place before the bill comes into force.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Next, we have Leah Gazan.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

My questions are for Madam Parsa.

You spoke about systemic oppression and the misapplication of the law. You spoke a little bit about mandatory sentences. I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this. For BIPOC communities, why is the criminalization of coercive control more of an issue?

[Roxana Parsa]

I think there are two main reasons that we've raised.

First, if you look at the history of the criminal law and look specifically at something like mandatory charging and domestic violence policies, you'll see that violence and abuse are often treated differently when faced by BIPOC communities. It's not understood the same way by police officers and by members of the legal system. Often this leads to the victim being charged as an aggressor.

Studies have shown that this happens at much higher rates with indigenous and Black women. They are identified and charged as primary aggressors in situations of domestic violence when they were really the survivors there. That is a risk that we really think should be taken seriously with any new criminal offence.

Second, marginalized communities, racialized communities, disabled women and queer communities, all of these groups have valid and historical reasons to distrust the police and the legal system. Relying on the legal system and the criminal justice system as the solution in effect places these people outside of the system and outside of an ability to seek help. People who feel more comfortable going to the legal system and talking to police officers might feel like they can access this criminal law, but many of these communities would not want to seek out—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What would you recommend as the alternative?

[Roxana Parsa]

What we would recommend as the alternative is, like I've said, funding for social services and for housing and education. Having education for frontline providers, having education for social service workers—that tool box that was being spoken about—I think is a great idea so that people are aware of coercive control. If these events are being seen, people will understand that this is abuse and that someone might need help.

I think that social services, housing and, as you were saying, basic income should all be prioritized.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you, Leah.

A few people mentioned—I know Anita did—that the tool kit be tabled. Perhaps we could have the clerk request an electronic copy and then we'll be able to have it.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for their testimony.

We're going to pause for a few minutes. The next panel is all online, so we're going to do a quick change for that, and then we'll get moving.

Thank you.

We will suspend for about four or five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

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

The committee will resume our meeting and the study of coercive behaviour.

We are now with our second panel of witnesses.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name.

Those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. Please mute your microphone when you are not speaking.

Those in the room, your microphone will be controlled.... There is no one in the room, so we're good.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. You have the choice of English or French for your earpiece. If interpretation is lost, let me know with a wave of your hand. I'll be watching.

At this point, I would like to welcome our witnesses.

We have Lori Chambers, professor at Lakehead University, as an individual. From the Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuelle, we have Gabrielle Comtois, policy analyst. From YWCA Hamilton, we have Amy Deschamps, director, housing and gender-based violence support services.

You will each have five minutes for opening remarks, followed by rounds of questions.

At this point, I would like to give the floor to Ms. Chambers.

You have five minutes.

[Dr. Lori Chambers, Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Coercive control is a very gendered behaviour. It's a starting point. That is something that is too often neglected when we talk about intimate partner violence. It is a range of acts designed deliberately to make a person feel subordinate, dependent, and to isolate them from sources of support and escape from a relationship.

It can include violence, but it doesn't have to. It's extremely difficult for people to recognize from the outside, and sometimes it's difficult for people to recognize for themselves that they're experiencing coercive control.

It is a high-risk situation for fatality when someone is experiencing coercive control. It is much more predictive of femicide than any physical violence that a man can take against his partner.

The tactics of coercive control are quite straightforward when you list them, but they're harder to see. I think the greatest challenge we face is that most people don't really understand it. It is the use of intimidation, isolation, control and deprivation, sexual assault, economic exploitation and legal harassment to strip someone of their autonomy and personhood. It's a fundamental assault on a person's autonomy in all ways.

You're threatened, you're surveyed, you're degraded repeatedly. This may be accompanied by violence at the beginning of a relationship or at any time to confirm control, but after that behaviour, it may just be a threat of further violence and nothing else is ever necessary. It is quite common for people to say, “He didn't hit me, so I don't think I was being abused,” but that does not mean that abuse, and actually very dangerous abuse, is not present.

Technology actually feeds into this because GPS systems, small cameras, smart phones, audio and video recorders all make this easier for perpetrators to continue their control even from a great distance, so no matter where you go, he can still find you and he can still harass you.

There's isolation. Their access to their family, friends and other people who are sources of support is often really cut off. Their resources and capacity and abilities are used for the benefit of the perpetrator, not for the person who's being abused. They're deprived of the means of independence, and of even control of their everyday life. They are told what to wear, what to eat, when not to eat, when they can go to the bathroom.

It can be very pervasive, all controlling of every aspect of their life and identity. This means that people gradually lose the ability to make decisions for themselves because they're not allowed to do so, and this makes it difficult to leave.

There's sexual coercion. We don't talk nearly enough about the fact that sexual violence is 100% part of coercive control. Victims who are experiencing coercive control are assaulted. They may not think of it as rape because we don't, as a society, recognize that rape occurs in ongoing long-term relationships. We minimize it. We think of it as people—particularly women—owe sexual performance to their male partners. But if you're asked to do something, or told to do something, or forced to do something, because there will be bad consequences for you if you don't, even if you're not punched as you're raped, it is sexual coercion. Having to do things that are distasteful to you at a time when you don't want to is part of the pattern of coercive control.

There's financial control, economic exploitation, taking out credit cards and loans in your name, leaving you indebted, taking away your ability to work, sabotaging your ability to get to work, to have friends at work, allowing you only a very small amount of money to buy food for the family so that then you're going hungry and you can't save any money whatsoever to do anything independently. There's employment and sabotaging your employment so you can't keep a job, restricting your ability to get an education to improve your situation. All of these are characteristics and facets of control.

If you do manage to leave, there's legal harassment. This is particularly terrifying and terrible when women think they might have escaped, and then the perpetrator does things like stalking and harassment and potential violence and threats and following and being with their kids all the time.

Then with custody agreements, you have to go to court and you're being gaslighted about what you did and what he did.

These patterns are not recognized by police, so if you call for help, it's not seen. If you go to family court, it's not seen.

We know that women and children are dying because of this. We need to have a much better understanding of how these tactics work together and far better training for all the services that are responding. We need more money in women's hands—and housing and options for them—so that they are able to leave.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for that. We're all well aware that five minutes go so quickly. I'm sure that on many occasions we would love to have 10 instead.

Just in the interest of time, we will move on to Ms. Comtois.

You have five minutes.

[Gabrielle Comtois, Policy Analyst, Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel]

For more than 45 years, the Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel has been committed to promoting an exchange of expertise among its members, supporting the search for solutions for putting an end to sexual assault and promoting the development of intersectional feminist intervention services for women in Quebec.

For the Regroupement, coercive control is both an individual and a collective problem that is rooted in unequal relationships. We use the expression “continuum of sexist violence” to designate behaviours intended to control and subordinate women in our society by instruments of domination such as violence and discrimination.

As a national group concerned with sexual violence, we would like to draw the committee's attention to the concept of sexual coercion in particular. According to expert Tanya Palmer, sexual violence, in a coercive control context, can manifest itself as chronic sexual violation, that is to say, the gradual erosion of a victim's sexual autonomy over time. The routine nature of most sexual assaults, such as nocturnal rape, constant touching, denial of intimacy and the fact that only one person dictates whether, when and how sexual relations must take place, degrades the victim's sexual autonomy. In other words, coercive control creates a general climate in which it is impossible to give enthusiastic, free and informed consent to sexual activity because refusal to comply may have consequences, particularly when accompanied by other types of violence, such as physical or psychological violence.

Consequently, we must stop viewing incidents of sexual violence between intimate partners as isolated events and start conceiving them as one of the manifestations on a continuum of tactics employed by the aggressor to trap the victim in a situation of violence.

As regards potential solutions, the Regroupement is particularly concerned about the fact that criminalization is currently the government's main strategy for preventing and correcting coercive control. Criminal justice measures should be only one part of a broader strategy.

As you are no doubt aware, only 5% of sexual crimes are currently reported to police in Canada. We also know that individuals most exposed to sexual violence, such as indigenous women, Black and racialized women, women with disabilities, persons with insecure immigration status and members of the LGBTQIA+ community, are more likely to have negative interactions with the criminal justice system and are therefore less inclined to turn to it. Considering that, according to the Canadian Women's Foundation, more than 55% of Canada's population doesn't fully understand the concept of consent to sexual activity, we encourage the federal government to focus more on public education and awareness campaigns in order to prevent violence before it occurs.

The organizations combatting sexual violence are on the front lines of the development and promotion of awareness and prevention programs in Canadian communities. However, the demand those organizations are facing only grows from year to year, and the lack of adequate resources directly results in longer waiting times for victims seeking the care they need to begin healing. Consequently, the federal government must ensure that those organizations have adequate resources to do the absolutely vital awareness and prevention work they do in our communities across the country.

Lastly, one of the main factors that keeps women trapped in coercive control dynamics is economic inequalities, as committee members were just discussing. The committee will definitely continue hearing about the economic inequalities issue during its current study. These inequalities still persist today. Economic insecurity often forces women to relocate or to live in dangerous situations in order to have a roof over their heads and to meet their basic needs.

The Regroupement believes it is crucially important to address the economic inequalities issue to enable women to escape their aggressor. We have recently witnessed the implementation of the national action plan to end gender-based violence, which the Regroupement views in a positive light. However, like the Ending Violence Association of Canada, we believe that the action plan leaves the actors in the fight against sexual violence somewhat to their own devices.

We are asking the federal government to make more policy room and grant more resources to community organizations that provide assistance to sexual assault victims and to stop viewing sexual violence and domestic violence as separate phenomena. Instead it should view them as crosscutting issues. Sexual assault is committed between intimate partners, and that expands domestic violence dynamics. These issues are part of a continuum, not two separate problems. We feel we now have a chance to improve the action plan by conferring a more prominent role on stakeholders in the fight against sexual assault.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Deschamps, you have five minutes.

[Amy Deschamps, Director, Housing and Gender Based Violence Support Services, YWCA Hamilton]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, for the invitation to speak before you today on the matter of criminalization of coercive control. I bring my testimony from the traditional territories of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe people. I'm the director of housing and gender-based violence with YWCA Hamilton and have close to a decade of frontline experience in the VAW sector. As well, I'm a survivor of childhood family violence.

At YWCA Hamilton we have served, across a range of preventative and responsive programs, close to 2,000 individuals over the past year whose lives have been impacted by gender-based violence, and we strive to centre the voices of those with lived and living experience as well as our frontline staff in our work and in our advocacy.

While there are key cross-sectoral responses that acknowledge the role of legislation and enforcement in the work to eradicate gender-based violence, many of the survivors we support, particularly those from marginalized or diverse communities, identify that their experiences within these systems have not led to better outcomes for themselves or their children. These systems have had some but limited success in addressing reoffence through existing means of intervention and monitoring. We know that gender-based violence, as we heard today, is rooted in patriarchy and systemic oppression, and that any law, policy or response is also vulnerable to these failings in its application.

We see this in the rates, as was mentioned by other witnesses, of dual charging and the increased rates of survivors being solely charged with the introduction of mandatory charging. We also see this demonstrated in the higher-than-average rates of gender-based violence that we know exist where perpetrators have access to firearms in their jobs and higher-than-average degrees of authority over communities. To meaningfully address and increase safety for survivors, where strengthening and improving the legal system is critical, I want to echo research-backed and evidence-based steps that we believe should be taken in advance of any introduction of coercive control into the Criminal Code. These are highlighted by many of the previous testimonies that have been given to the committee, such as the powerful testimony by executive director Nneka MacGregor of WomenatthecentrE in 2022, as well as really important publications put forward by OAITH and Luke's Place on this topic.

I think, as has been spoken to really significantly already today, about the challenge of accurately capturing the various forms and nuances of—

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

Pardon me for interrupting, Ms. Deschamps.

Madam Chair, unless I'm mistaken, there's no interpretation.