Status of Women Committee on Sept. 25th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Perfect. Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Larouche for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their contribution to this extremely important study. Actually, it's a crucial one.

My first questions will be for Ms. Fortin and Ms. Gagnon, from Juripop.

Either one of you can respond.

Since your organization is in Quebec, you're no doubt aware of the recently published “Rebâtir la confiance” report, which is the result of the Government of Quebec's all-party study on sexual assault and domestic violence.

Members of the National Assembly reached out to me, and we had a conversation about criminalizing coercive control. They recommended it to the federal government because it's not in their jurisdiction, so it's up to the feds to deal with it, taking into account what Quebec found in its study. What are your thoughts on that?

What can you add? Have you spoken with MNAs in Quebec City about this?

[Sophie Gagnon]

Thank you for your question.

Juripop does not practise criminal law, so we haven't had any discussions with MNAs about criminalization. What we're seeing is that the civil law system is not really part of the conversation about domestic violence and coercive control. Our intention today is to broaden the conversation and enrich the committee's report. We want to make sure that the Divorce Act and training for judges in civil cases are part of the conversation about ending coercive control in Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

As you said, the Divorce Act does not mention coercive control. For the reasons you described, both that concept and the concept of domestic violence must be included. That's important. At the federal level, we focus on criminal law, but for you, incorporating it into civil law is important, too.

You're an expert on coercive control. In fact, in your opening remarks, you encouraged the committee to consider this aspect as part of its study on putting coercive control in the Criminal Code.

How does that fit with what we've heard? In other words, there's no reason to think a wave of the wand will fix everything. Instead, we need to zoom out and think about a continuum of victim services. In addition, as you said, we'll have to think in terms of co-operation between civil law, criminal law and community-based victim support groups.

How do you see this continuum of services being structured to meet the needs you're seeing on the ground?

[Sophie Gagnon]

I can touch on that, but my colleague, Ms. Fortin, may want to talk to you about another aspect of that afterwards.

The first witness who testified in person before the committee—I've forgotten her name, unfortunately—gave examples of several women who are victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control and who, for a host of reasons, will not report it to the police. Changing the Criminal Code will not help these people.

This evening's witnesses have shared some examples of victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control. Criminalizing coercive control could backfire against such victims; they could end up being accused of such a crime by the person perpetrating the violence.

We see family law as a complementary tool that would ensure the justice system recognizes these women's experiences. They can also turn to the civil law system for safety orders. Juripop goes through the civilian justice system to get civil protection orders, which are the civilian equivalent of a “section 810”, a peace bond. It's not a perfect tool, but we use it to keep the people we represent safe.

In my presentation, I talked about how a shared custody order can exacerbate coercive control. Conversely, a sole custody order or protective measures for the exchange of children can end or mitigate coercive control. That's how family law can help us.

I will now let my colleague, Ms. Fortin, explain how the authorities can work together.

[Justine Fortin]

I'll give you a very brief but concrete example of people who will not seek help from the criminal justice system.

At Juripop, we often see this when we deploy a “cellule d'action concertée”. These are crisis response teams made up of institutional and community partners on the ground, who come together to assess whether there's a serious and imminent risk of homicide, that is, a risk that a woman and her children will be killed. In many of the cases we've seen, family law is a factor. During the post-separation period, coercive control manifests in different ways. Coercive control is about isolating, controlling and terrorizing a person and their children. The idea is to get various stakeholders talking to each other: police, youth protection, shelters, crisis centres, correctional officers, family law attorneys and Crown prosecutors.

The common denominator in all of this is the facts reported by the family law counsel, who identifies the elements of coercive control.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Leah, you have six minutes as well.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Thank you so much to all the witnesses today.

My first question is for Madam Haileyesus.

You spoke about the importance of criminalizing coercive control but said that this needed to be implemented through an anti-oppressive, trauma-informed and intersectional lens. This is something that I've often pushed for in committee.

You spoke specifically about indigenous and Black women. It's really important when you look at the stats. Indigenous and racialized women experience the highest rates of violence in the country, but you said that often in these cases of coercive control indigenous and Black women are accused of being the aggressors in those situations. Can you expand on that?

[Meseret Haileyesus]

Yes.

Thank you so much for this important question.

Probably, to start, I can give you some statistics. According to Stats Canada, which conducted this in 2020, in the general social survey—social identity, one in five, which is 21% of Black and 22% of indigenous people, have little or no confidence in the police. This is a statistic that we need to keep in our minds. As I said, before we criminalize coercive control, we need to make sure that our justice system is equitable for the Black and indigenous communities. We learned it from Australia. Actually, I already mentioned in my statement that it also perpetuates indigenous women because of the lack of trust in our police system. That's why I try to explain.

For victims, especially racialized victims, there is also a study that explored gender-based violence and specialized in the courts and racial minority women. It shows that the justice system is already unresponsive, and many racialized Black and indigenous victims are revictimized during the court proceedings and face discrimination. Some of the services are culturally insensitive, which is affecting women and is stressing the system.

We support that coercive control must be because it's part of economic abuse, and it must be criminalized. However, we want to make sure that our justice system is a service for women and gender-diverse folks, especially for BIPOC.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I understand this correctly, what you're saying is that because of ongoing systemic racism—and we certainly know that through the red dress study—to put in place the criminalization of coercive control would be premature before we deal with issues of systemic racism, particularly because the majority of victims of violence come from indigenous and Black backgrounds. Is that right?

[Meseret Haileyesus]

Yes, that's correct.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay.

You also spoke about 95% of the victims of coercive control, and a big part that is financial abuse. Is that right?

[Meseret Haileyesus]

Yes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Not allowing access to bank accounts...financial abuse....

I put forward a bill for a guaranteed livable basic income. One of the reasons I put it forward was in response to the national inquiry. We know there's a direct correlation between intimate partner violence, gender-based violence, and economic abuse or not having access to proper economic resources. Unfortunately, it was voted down.

I know you're quite supportive of a guaranteed livable basic income. Why is providing a guaranteed livable basic income critical in truly addressing one of the root causes of coercive control?

[Meseret Haileyesus]

As you know, the abuser's best friend is isolation. Coercive control isolates the victim to make them financially dependent, so the victim cannot live. She doesn't have the power to even access social services. The most important thing is empowering women economically. It may be from a livable income or by creating a job opportunity. For a victim, it is very critical not only to empower but also to break the cycle of coercive control. I personally support it. Women should have a livable income because that breaks the cycle of coercive control, and that also breaks the cycle of isolation.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I have a deep concern about this because we also have witnesses.... Linda MacDonald, you indicated at the beginning of this session that Nova Scotia has declared gender-based violence as an epidemic. There are multiple cities across the country that have also declared gender-based violence as an epidemic, yet it seems we're not really at a place where we are willing to take the actions necessary to deal with it.

Do you think we currently need to look at systems that are in place to ensure that we are creating a society that does protect women and gender-diverse people from violence?

[Linda MacDonald]

Yes, but I think women and girls deserve much more respect than we're getting. A lot of what we're saying is not new. For whatever reason, there's still a lack of political will in all parties to really take on the seriousness of the misogyny and the patriarchy in our culture. I know that education is important, educating children, and changing the structures, but if we're all still working in a misogynistic judicial system or political system or health care system, we're still all walking around as victims who are trying to heal. Coercive control is really difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you. We're going to have to leave it at that.

Thank you, Ms. MacDonald.

At this point, we will be starting our second round.

Dominique, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Again, this study has been shocking and horrifying.

I would like to thank everyone here this afternoon, especially those who have shared their painful experiences.

Ms. Haileyesus, can you describe the typical victim of economic violence, economic control? Here's what I want to know. Are these victims necessarily women who are financially disadvantaged? You're very interested in empowering women, but can professional women be victims too? What is the typical victim profile?

[Meseret Haileyesus]

Sorry, but the audio was cut off. Could you repeat the question?

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

My question is very straightforward.

What is the typical profile of a victim of economic violence? Are victims always financially disadvantaged or can they also be women or men who earn a good living?

[Meseret Haileyesus]

Economic abuse is a very hidden, under-recorded and under-reported form of violence experienced by 95% of victims of gender-based violence.

There are three types of economic abuse.

The first is economic control, which is when an abuser controls a woman's expenses, her budget and her entire life. It is coercive control.

The second type of economic abuse is economic exploitation. Usually this targets a woman who makes an income. An abuser takes advantage of her and destroys her economic life. It may involve stealing her bank account information, it may involve using her credit card for coerced debt, and it may also involve making a lot of financial obligations on her behalf. There is also fraud, and even tax fraud; you name it.

The third one is employment sabotage, like restricting a woman from going back to the workforce. It may involve hiding her car key and denying her buying basic necessities, for example, like medication, transportation and telecommunications devices, which are economic resources.

There is a cycle of economic abuse. First, the victim is isolated because of coercive control. Second, the victim doesn't have any idea or knowledge about her financial rights. Third, a victim usually doesn't have resources like telecommunications devices, for example, because her credit may have been destroyed. Finally, a woman will not have the right to access her bank accounts.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gagnon and Ms. Fortin, thank you for being here.

Have we come to an agreement on a definition of coercive control? We discussed this a little earlier and brought up how hard it is to properly define the term. Everyone needs to know exactly what we're talking about. I would like you to answer that question.

I would also like to look at training judges, because I think there is a problem in that regard. What would be the clearest definition possible?

[Justine Fortin]

I will certainly try to answer your question, and I will connect it to the examples given by the previous witness.

Coercive control has three stages.

The first is the deprivation of freedom, whatever the type of freedom.

The second is the micro-regulation of everyday life, meaning that every little aspect of a person's daily life is criticized. It can range from what they eat to the colour of their clothing to the shampoo they use. Their movements can be restricted, and they can be followed.

The third is related to types of behaviours, meaning all forms of violence up to physical violence. We are talking about a pattern of behaviour. The strategies used are designed to isolate, control and scare a person.

It happens bit by bit: A common metaphor is a cage or a web closing in on someone. The control will be total, to the point where the victim may no longer realize that he or she is caught in this pattern of behaviour.

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

I've just been told that my time is up.