Let's do a do-over.
We have done really great work in this committee. I have to say, out of everything in the House of Commons, what I've enjoyed most is this commtitee, because we know how to work through things and get things done. I think it's been of benefit to voices that are historically marginalized in this place, and that's women and diverse-gendered folks. They really have no place in here, especially with intersectionalities of women like me, so this gives me place and purpose in this very misogynistic institution. I want to start by saying that.
I want to point out a couple of things. One, I think “intimate partner” is still included. If you look at part (a) in G-3, proposed subsection 810.03(1), it says:
Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to the intimate partner
I don't think it's taking out the voices. It's looking at research in domestic violence where people who are experiencing domestic violence are often, for whatever reason, too afraid to come forward. We will be doing a study on coersive control, and I'm sure that will be a centerpiece of the study on coersive control, which has massive implications that go beyond physical abuse. The mental and psychological abuse is a form of control and power, which will limit a victim's ability to feel like they can come forward from fear.
I think it actually supports getting at some of the roots of gender-based violence by really ensuring that we can save lives through this bill. I know we're bringing up former testimony, but I was very touched by the senator when.... This comes from his daughter's personal experience, who I suspect maybe felt like it wasn't safe for her to come forward, for whatever reason. Whether we think it's legitimate or not, we know through research and just lived experience that women often will not come forward.
I think this change will save lives, in fact, when you say “any”. It will help families support a member, who they see is in an obviously abusive situation, in a way that could potentially save their life.
I don't think that the senator would not approve of making amendments to a bill that, in honour of his daughter, probably would have provided her with more safety.
I really support this amendment.
The other thing is that we know that in cases of suspected child abuse, we all have a legal obligation to report such abuse. We are legally obligated, so I don't think this amendment moves away from our current legal obligations, which are to report any suspected abuse of children.
That's where I'm at with it, knowing that everybody around the committee table has the best intentions to lift up the voices of victims. I want to acknowledge that. I don't think there's anything malicious in the discussion that's happening here, but I do think if we're going to make a better bill and base it on research and base it on the facts, then I have to support this amendment, because I know it will save lives.
I don't have a problem with (d), because it's already required of me through law.
Thank you.