Status of Women Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Welcome to meeting number 123 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I would like to remind all members of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name prior to speaking. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, November 27, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of coercive behaviour.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I would to provide a trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and coercive control. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If you feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk.

For all witnesses and for members of Parliament, it is important to recognize that these are difficult discussions, so let’s try to be compassionate in our conversations.

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

For today's panel, by video conference, we have two witnesses appearing anonymously. As well, in the room, from Humane Canada, we have Kerri Thomson, manager, justice and legislative affairs. In addition, by video conference, we have Kamal Dhillon, author and speaker.

At this point, I would like to begin with Kerri Thomson, for up to five minutes.

[Kerri Thomson, Manager, Justice and Legislative Affairs, Humane Canada]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

Humane Canada is the federation of Humane Societies and SPCAs, with members in 10 provinces and two territories, whom Canadians depend on to care for abused and abandoned animals, to advocate for greater protections and to provide resources to their communities.

We're also the founders of the Canadian violence link coalition, which brings together multisector stakeholders to explore the connection between animal abuse and human violence known as the “violence link” that often manifests in intimate partner and family violence.

I'm here today to advocate for survivors of violence and for their animals. More than 60% of Canadian homes have a companion animal, with 70% of those identifying their animal as family. When there is violence in the home or in a relationship, it is not only the human victim who is vulnerable but also the animal, which can be used as a very effective tool of coercion and control

From our work with survivors with animals, as well as with law enforcement, family lawyers and prosecutors, we are aware of how common this link is. However, it often goes unrecognized by law enforcement and in the courts, even when animal cruelty charges are laid. This is especially true where an abuser engages in non-violent forms of abuse. A 2018 Canadian survey found that 89% of violence survivors reported animal abuse by their partners. A later study of survivors highlighted some specific actions, with 65% reporting threats to get rid of the pet and 60% reporting intimidating or scaring the pet, while only 20% reported the actual injury of a pet and 14% reported a pet being killed.

These statistics indicate that abusers are more likely to engage in less obvious forms of abuse, leaving victims unsure if they should report to police because it's unclear if a crime has been committed.

A few stories from our network and research show the range of ways animals can be used for coercive control. A survivor left an abusive situation, but her abuser refused to let her take her dog. A week later, he brought the dog to meet her but only allowed her to spend time with the dog if she complied with some of the things he wanted. Even after leaving, he was continuing to control her through the dog.

Our family law research study last year revealed similar situations, or situations where the pet was just removed without the victim's knowledge or consent and with no indication of where they would been taken.

In an Ontario dangerous offender application in 2022, the offender's history of violent behaviour spanned 20 years, with a demonstrated pattern of violence toward multiple intimate partners. During one such incident, he was jealous that his former partner's phone kept ringing. He wanted to have sex later, and when she refused, he became irate, accused her of cheating on him and began smashing things before throwing her cat off the 11th floor balcony. He then blocked her from leaving when she tried to run outside after her animal.

According to a January 11 article in the Ottawa Citizen this year, an offender was arrested for arranging the sexual abuse of four dogs and the extortion of a young man with autism, a minor he was grooming to have a sexual relationship with. An investigation revealed that the offender had coerced his impaired victim into being photographed engaging in sex acts with a dog, which he then used to extort sexual favours from him, threatening to send the image to the victim's family and friends, as well as to police.

While legislation would be useful to clearly identify that these indeed are criminal acts involving coercive control, we also need to train all justice system personnel, from law enforcement through to judges, to understand animal abuse as a significant contributing factor in situations involving intimate partner violence and family violence. This would add clarity not only for justice stakeholders but also for victims and survivors.

In closing, this committee recognized that cruelty toward animals can be an early indicator of intimate partner violence and that abusers may use pets as a way to threaten their partners in its study of intimate partner and family violence in Canada. Likewise, we urge you to consider animal mistreatment as a tool of coercive behaviour here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you for your testimony.

Next I will welcome, by video conference, Witness 1.

You have up to five minutes.

[Witness 1, As an Individual]

Thank you and good morning.

Non-preferred or unsafe parents who utilize parental alienation, or PA, as a legal strategy will be victorious at the criminalization of coercive control, as it will allow them to take their post-separation abuse even further. I support the government's initiative to criminalize coercive control if the use of parental alienation and its related pseudo concepts and remedies are prohibited in family court. Otherwise, those who the new law is meant to protect will be at even greater risk.

Family court labelled me an exemplary mother and as someone who engaged in coercive control and parental alienation. Prior to family court, I had never heard of PA. Little did I know that my children and I would become victims of what is referred to as the alienation industry.

In the spring of 2022, I received a judgment that ordered a transfer of care of the children from me to their father within 48 hours and a no-contact order between the children and me and my family and friends. The no-contact order stipulated no direct or indirect contact with the children for 90 days, and that if such contact did occur, the 90-day period would start over.

The children were devastated by this news. Prior to this order, they spent 15 hours a week of court-ordered parenting time in their father's care. They had not had an overnight visit in almost three years. At this time, the children were 12 and 14 years of age.

At no time was the no-contact order breached. However, it took over 500 days until I was reunited with my daughter. It has now been over 900 days since I've had any contact with my son.

In addition, the judgment ordered that the children travel to the United States to attend what is referred to as a “reunification camp” with their father. The program was four days in length, at a sole cost to me of $15,000 U.S. Please note that our family is Canadian. We have no ties to the U.S. My children are not the first to be ordered to the United States for reunification therapy as a remedy for PA. This has been happening since at least 2008.

The judgment further stated that, once the children returned from the U.S., they would engage in what's referred to as “aftercare”, with a therapist approved by the facilitator of the American reunification camp. In less than six months, an additional $18,000, this time in Canadian funds, was paid. I was responsible for half.

It is notable that prior to this judgment, our family had already been court-ordered to participate in what is referred to as outpatient reunification therapy, a section 30 assessment and a clinical intake consultation, for a combined total of approximately $50,000.

As identified at last week's committee meeting, parental alienation is a lucrative endeavour for lawyers and court-ordered clinicians. A review of case law will demonstrate that it is the same lawyers, psychologists and social workers, case after case, who advance the narrative of parental alienation in family court.

The label of parental alienation in family court actually results in the non-preferred or unsafe parent being judicially empowered to further engage in coercive control. For example, my co-parent was granted an order that I had to provide him with 24 hours’ notice when I'd be physically present at work because of its proximity to my daughter's school—a school she was no longer attending. The judge herself brought forth the idea that I should be required to walk to work or park in a specific location.

Financially, I spent several hundred thousand dollars to try to protect my children. The end result was that I was erased from my daughter's life for over 500 days, and I continue to be erased from my son's life. Additionally, I have a “costs award” against me for over half a million dollars, payable to my children's father, because he is considered the successful party in family court based on PA.

Throughout my speech today, I've used the terms “non-preferred” and “unsafe” parent rather than mother and father. The use of parental alienation as a legal strategy does statistically affect more mothers. However, fathers are also at risk and, therefore, children as a whole. A review of Ontario case law will show that an educational assistant, a university lacrosse coach and a Toronto fire chief are all fathers who lost their children via this legal strategy.

Professionally, I spent 10 years working in pediatric rehab. We utilized techniques based on best practice and research. Each client goal had aligned objectives, and we used a goal attainment scale. Reunification therapy uses indices of success—for example, when the child demonstrates expressions of love; they understand how distorted memories or perceptions can occur; or, in my case, my daughter could envision her father walking her down the aisle at her wedding.

Six American states have signed into law legislation that aligns with the recommendations of the UN. As these laws are passed state by state, Canada will become a larger target market of the alienation industry than it already is. One American therapist has made it publicly known that she has already relocated to British Columbia.

In conclusion, I recommend that this committee advance the criminalization of coercive control in tandem with the recommendations of the UN and NAWL, such that the use of parental alienation and its related concepts and remedies are prohibited in family court. This is because those who are labelled an alienator are also labelled as someone who is engaged in coercive control, and the use of parental alienation as a legal strategy results in judicially empowered coercive control by the non-preferred parent and the clinicians involved with the case.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much as well, Witness 1, for your testimony.

Witness 2, you have up to five minutes.

[Witness 2, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to share my story.

I'm a 17-year-old survivor of the family court system who was judicially trafficked to the United States for reunification therapy because my father claimed parental alienation. I am the daughter of Witness 1.

In 2022, my brother, my father and I travelled to New York to attend what is known as a reunification camp. It was facilitated by a social worker I worked with. For four days, we went to the personal apartment of my father. During this time, we were told that our negative memories of our father were false. We watched Welcome Back, Pluto, a movie about parental alienation. We watched a video summary of the controversial study—

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Witness 2, I'm going to have you pause for a moment.

I need you to try to slow down a bit and speak into the mic as best you can for the translation.

Thank you so much.

[Witness 2]

Sure.

We watched a video summary of the controversial study on false memories called “Lost in the Mall”. We watched episodes of the show Brain Games that tried to convince us further that our memories were incorrect, such as “False Memory and Misinformation Effect” and “Remember This!” We were told that our mother was the abusive one, and that the sessions were all videorecorded.

In the afternoons, we visited local attractions. During these outings, we were coerced into co-operation. A specific example was at the Empire State Building when Mary yelled at me for not smiling in a photo. I was told that if I did not smile, the no-contact order with my mom would be tripled.

About a month after we returned from New York, we began attending what is referred to as “aftercare” with a Canadian social worker. I will refer to him as “Kevin”. Kevin's framework and methodology were simply extensions of what we experienced in New York. With Kevin, we watched videos of controversial experiments that would not meet the ethical standards and best practices of today. For example, we watched Jane Elliott's “blue eyes, brown eyes” exercise, Tronick's “still face” paradigm and Harry Harlow's “monkey mother” experiment. Kevin even tried to encourage us to be physically affectionate with our father based on the work of Harry Harlow. Kevin utilized threats and bargaining in our therapy sessions. His indicators of therapeutic success included us telling our father that we loved him, initiating and accepting physical affection from our father, and addressing him as “Dad”.

With regard to schooling, it is important to share the following.

On our return from New York, my brother missed three weeks of school and I was not permitted to return to in-person school that year. I was forced to complete my grade 9 year virtually. In the fall of 2022, my father registered my brother and me at schools in his neighbourhood. My brother was devastated by this decision, as he would have been entering grade 7 with all of his friends since junior kindergarten.

I was simply excited to be returning to in-person school. I was not permitted to have a cellphone. My father said that, if I made new friends, they could call me at his number. I was not permitted to have a Chromebook that belonged to the school board. Rather, my father purchased me a Chromebook and installed the app Qustodio on it to monitor my every move.

Now that I was out of the house for the first time since April, I knew I had to advocate for my rights. I reached out to an organization for youth, and a lawyer there was able to assist me in obtaining a judicial interview. After my father learned that I had been in contact with this organization, I was threatened. My friends would be called to the guidance office and questioned, my friends would have to provide their phone records, and school security footage would be obtained. My father also started coming to the school at lunch and having me paged to the office. On one occasion, he had the principal come find me. He made me leave with him for the duration of the lunch breaks.

After the Christmas holidays that year, I was not permitted to return to in-person school again. I was enrolled at an online private school and not permitted to know my log-in information. My father logged me in to school daily. The online private school was asynchronous, and I did not have any real-time interaction with other students or teachers.

In the summer of 2023, I turned 16. On my birthday, I left my father's residence and began walking to my mom's. It was my understanding that, at age 16, I could make this choice. Rather, my father called the police and I was stopped about two-thirds of the way to my mom's. We spent hours in a park. In the end, I was taken back to my father's in a police car. My father had given the officers consent to use handcuffs and force if needed. I went co-operatively to avoid this.

Later that summer, I was provided with an updated judgment that permitted me to have contact with my mom again. The order states that it is in my best interest to reside primarily with my mom and to have parenting time with my father in accordance with my wishes.

The no-contact order that was in effect for over 500 days regarding my mom, and attendance at a reunification camp and aftercare, did not strengthen my relationship with my father. Rather, it reinforced my feelings, which have been consistent for years. My father's actions and choices while I was in his sole custody for over 500 days damaged our relationship further.

As someone who has observed and personally experienced coercive control, I support its criminalization. However, the presence of parental alienation and its associated remedies needs to be adequately addressed. The providers of reunification camps and therapy for parental alienation use types of coercive control in their practice, and further encourage and support the use of coercive control by the non-preferred parent. I recommend that legal representation be provided to children. While in the sole care of my father, there was not one individual I could confide in about what was actually happening. I recommend that the court not be able to make orders that include custody reversals, no-contact orders, the use of transport agents, reunification camps and therapy.

Thank you for listening to a high-level summary of my story. I will continue to advocate until change is made. This past January, I was featured in a webinar hosted by the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children. I spoke after Reem Alsalem and prior to Suzanne Zaccour.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much, Witness 2, for your testimony.

Lastly, I would welcome Ms. Dhillon.

You have up to five minutes. Thank you.

[Kamal Dhillon, Author and Speaker, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm a single mom of four grown children and a grandma to the seven most beautiful grandchildren in the world.

I feel compelled to share my story in order to tear down the walls of secrecy and shame.

I was 18 when I was married to a supposedly respectable man from an extremely wealthy and influential family. I was his victim for over 15 years. My abuse didn't happen in a third world country. It happened right here in this country.

From day one, he instilled in me an extreme fear. It was impossible to escape. Those who should have protected me protected him. The details are gruesome. I was subjected to all forms of abuse that turned into torture.

This happened almost daily. He tried to kill me on many occasions. He hung me. He doused me with kerosene. He even tried to push me in an ocean numerous times. He forced me to drink poison.

The beatings were relentless. He tied me up, kicked me, dragged me by my hair. He would leave me tied up all night. I was forced to sleep outside many nights. As a result of his beatings, I now live with an artificial jaw after having gone through 10 jaw surgeries. The pain is excruciating. I've lost all of the facial nerves.

All of this was to make it look like a suicide and to get full custody of my children. They would become his next victims, especially my two daughters. The kids would hide under their beds and cover their eyes to avoid seeing and hearing the screams. They were afraid to go to school, as they might never see me again.

I want to give victims the courage to speak out, get help and stop the cycle of abuse.

Unknowingly, my abuser gave me a very public platform and a loud voice—one that will change the misconception of domestic violence. You see, being a survivor requires great courage. I'm unmasking my story, but I refuse to be defined by the history of violence that I left behind.

The abuse is in my identity. I've fought hard to acquire the skills to cope, to recover, to combat cultural labels and to thrive as a warrior.

I'm an author of two books, a speaker and an educator on violence.

I continue to see victims failed over and over. The punishment does not fit the crime. Domestic violence is still looked at as a private matter.

There are so many abusers who live amongst us, hiding in plain sight, who are never publicly identified, despite abusing multiple victims over decades. This, I believe, is due to the existence of a broken system that causes victims to remain silent.

To all victims of domestic violence, I hope I can give your silent sufferings the exposure they deserve. To those who have suffered and to those who are still suffering, may you be strengthened by my story.

I hear you, I see you and I believe you. For me, those harsh years of brutality are behind me now. I am free. I hope every other victim will be too.

Please help me help victims become victors and make it a safer place for them and their families to live, without the ongoing fear of violence. Let this talk and the gravity of it affect you and enrage you. Let's not get numb to this violence. I appeal to you to protect our vulnerable children from abusers.

I have a question for you: What would you do if your daughter, your sister, your friend, your neighbour or your co-worker was being beaten, tortured, raped, sodomized or isolated by someone who's supposed to protect you and her? That was me and my story.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for sharing your story.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your opening remarks.

We will now move to our first round of questions. I ask all members and witnesses to please be mindful when there is one minute left. I will inform you when there are 30 seconds left. It is a short session before we go into drafting instructions.

I'd like to begin with Michelle, for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair. It's very hard, obviously, to fit everything in six minutes.

For everyone watching at home, we have a couple of witnesses whose identity has been protected, obviously, for their protection, so you'll hear them referred to as Witness 1 and Witness 2.

There has been powerful testimony on coercive control and the use of pets.

To Ms. Thomson, thank you for bringing this testimony to light. It is a massive issue, when we look at coercive control.

Ms. Thomson, if I can start with you, you said in your testimony that they protected him and not you. Can you explain who they are and how they did that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Ms. Dhillon, that question was posed to you.

[Kamal Dhillon]

Thank you.

Can you rephrase, because I wasn't really...?

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

In your testimony of your abuse, you said they protected him and not you. Can you explain who they are, and what they did to protect him and not you?

[Kamal Dhillon]

First of all, family members would say to me, “Just be quiet, and do whatever he wants you to do.” I would be scolded; he would be praised.

Secondly, the police did not protect me. The police asked me, “What did you do to incite the violence? What did you do to provoke it?”

Another time, a police officer had his hands on his hips where his gun was, and I had just been threatened by a gun. When I started to cry, he said, “Well, your story doesn't fit, so we'll go. Just don't waste our time.”

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

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon, that helps clarify many issues.

I have limited time.

Was your abuser, your ex-husband, ever criminally charged with any type of abuse?

[Kamal Dhillon]

Yes, he was.

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

Is he in a facility, or did he go to jail?

[Kamal Dhillon]

He did not go to jail. He was arrested, charged with assault and threatening to kill. He avoided that. He left the country, came back, and the case was thrown out.

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

Thank you for that.

I will move to Witness 1 and Witness 2.

Thank you for your courage today in speaking about your situation. Honestly, bringing to light to this committee as we study the criminalization of coercive control.... I think we have a unanimous understanding from the majority of witnesses we've heard that coercive control needs to be criminalized. However, there is concern about ensuring that the abuser isn't using it to manipulate.

I'm finding in these testimonies that there seems to be a very strong missing link of psychiatry in the family court system, when analyzing these personality disorders. The very terms that are supposed to be used to protect folks are then turned against them, and they become victims of them.

Witness 1, can you clarify how much money you had to spend based on the court order for these forced therapies?

[Witness 1]

Prior to the reunification camp, it was upwards of $50,000 between the various treatments. The reunification camp was $15,000 U.S., so that put it at about $70,000. The aftercare was already up to $18,000 after six months. I would say, with confidence, it's approaching $100,000 in court-ordered therapy.

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

It's hard not to assume that somebody is obviously profiting from these court orders. Who decides on the therapist? For you to get a court order and have to go to the United States rather than Canada when you're Canadian, who is deciding which therapists are used to help these families?

[Witness 1]

Both parties will be asked to put forth submissions of recommended therapists. What will happen is that the recommendations put forth by the preferred parent will never be accepted, and then you will always end up going with a therapist who's been put forth by the non-preferred parent because you were told, if you are not in agreeance, you are further frustrating the process. It's looked negatively upon if you don't co-operate and go with a recommendation they put forth. It is always a therapist who is put forth by the non-preferred parent, and then the court makes the final order on that.

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

I only have 30 seconds. I have so many more questions around that.

To Witness 2, a young girl, thank you for your brave testimony. You haven't seen your brother since this court order. I'm curious about how long it has been since you've seen your brother and if you are allowed to see him.