That brings us back to the conversation we were having earlier on the reverse onus. I see value, especially when we're looking at repeat offenders and defendants who were previously charged and who may have demonstrated violence in the past towards a victim. There should be an onus on the defendant in those cases to demonstrate to the court why they should be released and why they will not continue to pose a risk to the safety of either the victim or the community at large. I would agree with the reverse onus comment and shifting the onus from the Crown to the defendant in those cases.
With respect to the coercive control piece, I believe that being able to identify coercive control earlier helps us address and break the cycle of domestic violence earlier. I consider coercive control—whether it's psychological or financial—to be abuse. It's not physical abuse, but it is still abuse. Oftentimes, we don't identify or aren't able to identify what those signs of coercive control might be.
There is value not only in education and training for police officers, who are often the first to come into contact with victims, but also in other agencies—I mentioned women's crisis services and victim services—that may be the first to come into contact with them to then work toward finding solutions. We find this especially in cases of new immigrants or refugees, those who are precariously housed or who may be living in remote areas, where they are financially dependent on their abuser.
Being able to identify those signs and provide intervention and support earlier would be beneficial.