Debates of Nov. 9th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments and for her ongoing advocacy for women and victims of intimate partner violence.

The member raises an important point. We are seeing other jurisdictions doing this work and doing it effectively. In the U.K., since 2015, when it passed the legislation, we have seen a 30% increase in calls for support. The fact that we are seeing increased convictions of instances of abuse because of this legislation really shows us a path forward that works.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her intervention in the House today. Through the work she has done on this file and how eloquently she speaks, I have learned a great deal from her on this issue.

We have heard criticisms that domestic abuse is already covered within the criminal justice system. However, this particular piece of legislation is so important because it does take it past what the criminal system deals with, and I would like the member to address that a little more in depth. I know she addressed that during her speech, but I want to give her an opportunity to share more on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ongoing support for victims of intimate partner violence. She raises a really critical issue. Many people do not know what coercive control is. It is not a simple instance of violence. We have often heard from police that, when they show up, they are not able to take action or provide support because the tools that are needed are not in our criminal justice to support victims of coercive control.

When one partner breaks the other's cellphone or takes the car keys or their bank card, it does not fall under the current domestic abuse laws in Canada. It is so critical that we acknowledge the patterns of abuse and recognize that they are so prevalent in our society, so pervasive across the board. It is heartbreaking to see this happen. It is especially heartbreaking that, when victims have the courage to come forward, so far the support has not been there.

This is an important step that New Democrats want to take. I thank all colleagues across all parties for their support.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to speak today to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, introduced on May 18 by the member for Victoria. This bill seeks to achieve the critically important objective of greater protection from coercive and controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships.

Coercive control is a pervasive, long-term form of intimate partner violence that is intended to deprive victims of their autonomy. While some behaviours may constitute criminal offences in themselves, coercive control has to do with the cumulative impact of a series of behaviours, most of which do not constitute separate criminal offences.

Coercive control is a pervasive form of intimate partner violence. It takes place over time and serves to deprive victims of their autonomy. While some types of conduct, in and of themselves, may constitute separate criminal offences, coercive control concerns the cumulative impact of a range of behaviours, most of which do not.

Before I speak to this important piece of proposed legislation, I would like to express my deep condolences and sorrow to the families, friends and communities of the victims of intimate partner violence across Canada, including recently in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Truro, Nova Scotia; and Renfrew County, Ontario.

As someone who spent many years covering criminal court, I have graphic images and horrific details burned into my brain. They will never leave my head. I have come to know countless grieving families over the years, and they will never leave my heart.

These losses are immeasurable. Gender-based violence and intimate partner violence have no place in Canada, and each instance of these crimes is a tragedy. I echo the Minister of Justice in calling gender-based violence an epidemic in Canada that must be stopped.

We know that women are most often the victims of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, and that it is commonly perpetrated by men. In fact, 44% of Canadian women report having experienced some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. In 2021, women and girls represented 79% of police-reported victims of intimate partner violence. Between 2011 and 2021, two-thirds of all women and girls who were victims of gender-related murder were killed by an intimate partner. These are significant and distressing figures. Clearly, more needs to be done.

Our government is committed to ending the gender-based violence epidemic. I want to thank my colleague from Victoria and my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for their hard work on this issue.

Prior to Bill C-332, in 2020 and 2021, two private members' bills were tabled. They proposed almost identical reforms. Parliamentarians have also recently studied the issue of coercive control.

For example, the April 2021 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships” recommended that the Minister of Justice engage with provincial and territorial counterparts to study the possibility of creating a new coercive control Criminal Code offence. I am pleased to note that this work is under way. Justice officials are collaborating with their provincial and territorial partners, and they are engaging stakeholders to inform that work.

Furthermore, the Ontario Renfrew County coroner's inquest recommended criminalizing coercive control, and the Minister of Justice's response to the inquest recommendations reiterated openness to criminalizing control and noted the ongoing work at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. I understand this work is also informed by the insights from the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission's final report, which included a number of recommendations related to coercive control.

We know from parliamentarians' study and Justice Canada's engagement that there are diverse views on creating a new coercive control offence. In particular, a number of concerns have been raised, including that an offence could disproportionately negatively impact indigenous people, racialized and marginalized communities. It could also exacerbate their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. Perpetrators of intimate partner violence may also use a potential coercive control offence to further abuse their victims, for example, by accusing victims of committing coercive control, including to gain an advantage in family court. Victims may be charged with the offence, especially when they are defending themselves or their children.

The offence may be difficult for criminal justice actors to understand, enforce and prosecute because coercive control involves ongoing behaviour that serves to deprive the victim of their autonomy, which may be difficult to identify. Survivors may be revictimized by the criminal justice system when they testify.

Those who do support a coercive control offence spoke to the benefits of enacting such an offence, including that a new offence would better capture the actual experiences of victims, which concerns the impact of ongoing abusive conduct, rather than individual abusive incidents. A new offence could assist justice system actors in understanding and responding to intimate partner violence, including coercive control. A new offence could serve to prevent future violence, because coercive control often occurs prior to physical forms of violence and is a risk factor for its most serious forms, such as what is referred to as femicide. A new offence would be symbolically powerful and thus would empower victims of coercive control.

The experience of other jurisdictions may also assist us in examining this important issue. Specifically, England was the first jurisdiction to enact a coercive control offence in 2015, followed by Scotland in 2018, Ireland in 2019 and New South Wales in 2022. England's 2021 evaluation of their offence outlined a number of policy concerns, including that only a small number of incidents have come to the attention of police, indicating difficulties for both victims and police in recognizing the offence, missed opportunities for recording the offence as coercive control, and the necessity for training and specialized resources. A very high proportion of charges were withdrawn due to evidentiary difficulties, including where victims withdrew from the process, which highlights that gathering evidence in such cases is a significant challenge for police and prosecutors. Most prosecutions involved charges for other offences, for example, violent offences, which may indicate that the offence is more likely to be reported or identified by the police when another offence is committed.

Last May, Scotland published an evaluation of its coercive control offence. The conclusion was that there are no intrinsic problems with how the legislation is drafted, but there are problems with how it is enforced. One such problem is the degree to which the police are equipped to interpret and enforce the legislation.

These evaluations no doubt explain, at least in part, why stakeholders expressed support for the Scottish approach rather than the English approach. The findings of the evaluations also support an approach that would delay the coming into force of a new offence of coercive control in order to allow time to address enforcement issues, such as training.

Bill C-332, which is modelled on England's offence, proposes to criminalize repeated or continuous controlling or coercive conduct towards a spouse or other family member where that conduct has a significant impact on the person subjected to the conduct.

I am proud to support Bill C-332. However, I encourage committee members to compare the English and Scottish approaches and draw lessons that can be used to optimize Canada's path forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill, and it is always a true honour to stand in the House and represent the people from Peterborough—Kawartha who elected me.

I have been here for two years now, and the slowness of this place is frustrating. People are suffering, and a lot of people reach out to us, as members of Parliament, who are often in the depths or at their worst by the time they get to us. We have seen an increase in victims' rights' being eroded. Victims are really suffering, and we need change. The bill before us is a very positive movement on something that can be done, and I am very honoured to stand to speak to it.

The member for Victoria, who brought the bill forward, also shared a very personal experience as to why she created this private member's bill. It is very motivating to see that it comes from a place of humanity, to make the world a better place. Bill C-332 is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to controlling or coercive conduct. I am going to do a little bit of housekeeping stuff, and then I will get into some personal stories about this, because I think most people, especially women members of the House, have a lot of experience or know somebody who has experienced this.

The private member's bill would amend the Criminal Code, in particular section 264, by adding the following offence:

Everyone commits an offence who repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive conduct towards a person with whom they are connected that they know or ought to know could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that person and that has such an impact on that person.

Basically, the bill would be giving language to coercive control, which is relatively new in the Criminal Code. We have seen it happen in a couple of other places. In 2015, we saw it happen in England. Scotland and Ireland, I believe, were in 2019. This is the first time this has happened.

What is coercive control? Some people may actually know what this is, but they might not know the name of it. Many people would probably know it from Hollywood movies actually. Alice, Darling is a fairly new movie that really delves into this. From my era, people may remember the movie Sleeping with the Enemy, and there was a great Netflix series called Maid.

I am going to tell a story about my friend, what happened to her and what she had to do to get out of her relationship. I remember being on the phone with her many times, and she said, “Well, he's not hitting me, so it's not that bad.” I said, “Okay, but you don't have any money in your bank account, you're not allowed to go where you want to go, you don't have your own phone and you're afraid to leave your house.” That is abuse. That is where coercive control comes into this, and that is ultimately what it is. For women and men watching this, anybody who slowly takes away a person's finances, does not let them share a credit card or does not allow them to buy things on their own, and it is like a slow and steady kind of thing, that is coercive control, and the bill before us would build that into the Criminal Code to make it a criminal offence.

I talked to a couple of people before I rose to speak today, in order to get their thoughts on this, and I will share their feedback. However, before I do, I want to share what happened to my friend whom I spoke of.

My friend knew that she needed to get out of that relationship, but she could not. She could not leave him. She and her children were hostages in their own home. She had no money and no way to get out, and he would take her car keys. She could not leave. She literally had to get a burner phone. She had to stash away money that she got somewhere else. She had to leave when he went to work. It was like a Hollywood movie in real life. However, I want to tell members that today, she is doing amazing. She got her master's in education and built herself up from nothing.

It is possible to escape for anybody who is living in this reality. Most victims often do not even know they are victims, because it happens so slowly and the abusers make them feel like they are nothing.

Some people wrote to me with their stories, and I will share them shortly.

I asked a former prosecutor what he thought of this bill. He said that any time we can improve access to justice for victims, that is a win. Coercive control is an element of other offences, and this bill would be really helpful in preventing the often, sadly, inevitable escalation that happens in domestic violence. What is so great about the bill is that it is a prevention end, because people often cannot go to the police or do not want to go to the police until there is a physical assault. That is the slow progression of coercive control. It can start with not being allowed to wear what one wants to wear, and it progresses. This bill would help victims feel empowered to come forward.

I will read what the chief of the Peterborough Police Service wrote to me when I asked for his thoughts on this bill. The message from Chief Stu Betts is, “It would mean that there would be recognition of the fact that many crimes are only reported after a long history of coercive control and victims of those crimes may feel a greater sense of vindication and that someone recognizes that the history has caused increased harm. It also recognizes that some of those engaged in this type of behaviour essentially operate with the knowledge that their victims are likely not to report, if ever. I believe it may also go a long way toward the work we do to assist victims of crime.”

There was a horrific story out of Pembroke. I do not even like to say the murderer's name because I feel it gives him the attention that he feeds off of, so I will only refer to the victims. There were three women killed, point-blank shotgun killings: 36-year-old Anastasia Kuzyk, 48-year-old Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton. They were all murdered within the space of less than an hour by a man who everybody, including the police, knew was dangerous, yet nobody could do anything.

This bill would be a very simple, tangible solution to put into the Criminal Code to help victims.

I asked folks at home if they wanted to write to me to share any experiences and contribute to my speech today. One woman wrote to me. I am not going to use her name to protect her, but she gave me permission to share her story with everyone. It is important that I read this into the record.

She said, “As a mom who's been separated four years now and someone who has gone through hell with an ex-spouse, I feel this bill will hopefully help people who go through these types of situations. I left a 13-year marriage because of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse four years ago, which took me a lot of strength and courage to do. My mental state was drastically going downhill and I knew I had to finally leave, which was the hardest decision I ever had to make. I was having unpleasant thoughts. With support and help, I managed. I thought I was breaking free and things would get better, but as you are probably aware, the post-separation abuse escalated and got worse.” That is just what I spoke of. She said, “After four years, I am still dealing with coercive control and emotional and verbal abuse.”

The next part is so profound. It is emotional. She said, “I would rather be punched in the face than have to go through years of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse. I have talked to the police in the past a couple of times about situations, but all they could do was talk to him and warn him. They told me there is nothing they can do until he actually physically hurts me. The effects and damage of emotional and psychological abuse is horrible and exhausting, mentally and physically. After four years of being separated, I am still trying to find peace and build myself back up. It is very hard to do when you are still being abused, but with time and a lot of help and support, it is possible. Putting this in place would help.”

Members can obviously see that Conservatives fully support this bill. It has been put forward before. The former justice minister agreed with it, but nothing was done. Victims have repeatedly taken a back seat in the last eight years under the Prime Minister. This bill solidly states that yes, we will do something; yes, we see victims; yes, we recognize the implications and dangers of coercive control.

I hope everyone in the House supports this bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑332, which amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.

The issue of controlling and coercive conduct has been an interest of mine for quite some time. This type of conduct includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, and implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner and to their children, belongings or even pets.

First I will spend a little more time talking about the definition, before moving on to other measures we are currently looking at to address violence. I will conclude by explaining some of our concerns with the bill.

First, I have discussed the topic with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on a number of occasions. That is how I found out that Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who participated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study, had mentioned a minor complication, namely, the fact that there is no universally accepted definition. However, the following are some of the definitions that were given over the course of the study: limiting transportation, denying access to household, controlling food consumption, disconnecting phone lines, breaking cell phones and preventing them from going to work or going to school. Combined together, all those forms of behaviour fall under coercive control.

Abusive partners uses isolation, both physical and psychological, as a means to control their partner's contact with friends and family to emotionally bind the partner to them with the shackles of fear, dependency and coercive tactics of control.

In some cases, the violent partner uses state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control their victim by creating problems related to custody of the children and visitation rights. The justice system is used as a weapon against the victim. According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence is a serious problem, and controlling and coercive behaviours are an integral part of that. It is difficult to know the exact scope of this type of violence in Canada, because most cases are not reported to the police.

I want to point out that, in 2021, we were in the midst of the pandemic and victims were at home with their abusers 24-7. The fact that most cases of intimate partner violence are not reported to the police is the biggest impediment to determining how many people are affected, documenting the situation and implementing solutions for the victims of these types of behaviour. It is difficult for them to find a way to talk so someone.

During her testimony in committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs for the research, results and delivery branch at the Department for Women and Gender Equality, said that only about 36% of domestic violence incidents and 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. Those numbers are very low.

According to the data reported by the country's police forces in 2018, women living in rural areas experience intimate partner violence the most. That is also important to note. What is more, even though coercive and controlling violence may be present in other cases, it is present in 95% of cases of domestic violence as we know it.

Today, it is facilitated by technological advances such as geolocation systems, miniature cameras, smart phones and social media platforms. This makes everything more complex. All these things make it easier for the abusers when they want to continue to inflict harm and reinforce the isolation and control, regardless of where their victim may be. There are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, such as identity theft, the repeated sending of threatening messages or the disclosure of personal information or content about the victim that is sexual in nature.

In light of the testimony offered during the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a rather high number of offences under the Criminal Code can apply to domestic violence. The committee noted a few problems with the enforcement of the current legislation in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence.

Victims are wary of and have little confidence in existing mechanisms, police services and the justice system to adequately deal with their trauma. A number of stakeholders noted that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously and they worry about myths. They do not want to be judged by institutions on their credibility when they report their abusers.

Abusers often create financial and other forms of dependence, which limits the actions that victims caught in this vicious circle can take, because they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

The divide between the criminal justice system, family courts and community organizations needs to be addressed.

When elements of coercive control and other forms of control are present, the criminal and judicial systems too often say that simply telling one's story is not enough to file a complaint.

Lastly, one of the most serious obstacles is the under-enforcement of the law. Multiple charges against violent men are often reduced to a single charge, usually assault. This charge is then often withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond. This is the infamous section 810.

The many femicides and cases of harassment demonstrate the limitations and the weakness of section 810 in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and required to wear an electronic monitoring device.

Second, the bill proposed by the member for Victoria is part of a growing trend among legislators to focus on coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report on this issue, which was presented in the House on April 27, 2021. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also touched on the issue during its study on intimate partner violence and made two motions a priority for the winter of 2024, one of which was my study proposal to look at international best practices in this area and try to learn from them.

I also examined this issue to a lesser degree at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, when I participated a few times in its study on safe practices in sport and the topic of coercive control came up.

More recently, the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle's Bill C‑233, which was also examined by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, received royal assent on April 27.

The bill amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence, to consider whether it is appropriate for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device before issuing a release order. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to include an obligation to hold continuing education seminars on issues of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

To a lesser extent, Bill C-21, which is currently before the Senate, focuses primarily on gun control and revoking possession when an individual is suspected of, or has engaged in, domestic violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour. This is part of a trend.

Third, Bill C-332 amends the Criminal Code, after section 264, by introducing the concept of controlling or coercive conduct as a criminal offence. The Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C-332. However, we see several major shortcomings that will have to be studied in committee. The scope of the bill should be expanded to allow former spouses or other family members who are not part of the household to testify, in order to break the infamous “one person's word against another's” system. That is good.

What is more, consideration of testimony from neighbours, colleagues or others might also make it easier for victims to come forward. The severity of sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violent behaviour are other important factors. Reviewing the grounds on which prosecutors drop several charges and opt for the lowest common denominator shows that this can hinder the administration of justice and undermine public confidence and the victims' confidence in the courts that deal with these issues. We have to study all of that.

There are already 35 sections in the Criminal Code that can apply to domestic or family violence. They just need to be rigorously enforced, and we need to think of ways of ensuring that prosecutors rely on these sections more often in cases of coercive or controlling violence. We also need to address the difficulties associated with collecting evidence and ensuring solid and sound prosecution.

Megan Stephens, Executive Director and General Counsel at Women's Legal Education and Action Fund argued that Bill C‑247 and Bill C‑332 can make the legislation unnecessarily complex because new concepts are being introduced when the Criminal Code already contains very similar offences, particularly on criminal harassment and human trafficking. We will need to take a closer look at that.

The wording of the two NDP members' bills does not address the issue of victims having to relive their trauma. They will have to retell their stories over and over again, just as they do now, which has been roundly criticized. Furthermore, Bill C-332, as currently drafted, does not change how these matters are dealt with by the courts and the authorities.

In closing, if we want to ensure that this never happens again, if we want to put an end to this shadow epidemic, we must take action. We must take action because violence is not always physical, but it always hurts.

As a final point, the Quebec National Assembly has also made this call. I had a discussion with an MNA in Quebec City this summer. She told me that the Quebec National Assembly had done its part, that it had produced the report “Rebuilding Trust” and said that the ball was now in Ottawa's court. She said that the National Assembly does not have jurisdiction to study coercive control in the Criminal Code. I took it upon myself to heed the call from the Quebec National Assembly, a call made by female MNAs who did exceptional, non-partisan work.

Let us try to examine it intelligently in committee.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in this House in support of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, referring to controlling or coercive conduct.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member of Parliament for Victoria, for her hard work on this historic piece of legislation. I know that my colleague has been a long-time defender of women's rights; she has been outspoken about the need for federal leadership and action to end violence against women and gender-based violence. The presentation of this bill is part of her work as an MP and as an advocate.

We all know this bill is sorely needed and will make a difference. We could even say that it has the power to save lives across the country.

We know that this bill addresses a critical component of domestic violence by making controlling or coercive conduct in intimate relationships a criminal offence. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence of “engag[ing] in controlling or coercive conduct”.

This involves patterns of behaviour that have significant impacts on the person toward whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities. Coercive and controlling behaviour is also one of the most consistent early warning signs in femicides in intimate partnerships, even when no physical violence has occurred.

We know that Canada desperately needs this kind of legislation and that women in Canada desperately need the federal government to do much more to end the epidemic of violence against women. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, calls to the police about domestic violence have risen by 50%. We are also aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended addressing coercive and controlling behaviour in a report from the spring of 2021.

We, in the NDP, have heard calls from survivors of abuse to criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour. We are the only party to take the steps necessary to present legislation to address this issue.

There are warning signs of aggressive behaviour in toxic relationships, which include coercive and controlling behaviour. By amending the Criminal Code, the NDP is giving victims more tools to address domestic abuse and stepping up the fight against all forms of domestic violence.

I want to go back to that first point about the increase in calls to police by 50% when it comes to domestic violence. We are in 2023, and it has now been multiple decades where we have heard openly and been aware of many reports, made changes to our justice system and put systems and services in place to support women fleeing violence. To hear that number of a 50% increase in domestic violence is chilling. We all know of that reality, whether it is in our communities, in our households or among our friends. Depending on what experiences women are having, we know that there has been a sharp increase in violence against women.

We are coming up to December 6, when we think of the women who were shot dead by a misogynist at École Polytechnique. Every year we read the names of other women, as well, who have been the target of misogyny and have been killed because they are women. We read of women who have been killed by their partners or ex-partners.

We know that these numbers are not going down. To hear of an increase of 50% in calls to the police when it comes to domestic violence is not only chilling but also ought to be a call to action. We need this legislation passed, and we need to go much further to end domestic violence and gender-based violence in our country.

Just recently, in October, many of us were shaken by the femicide in northern Ontario, in Sault Ste. Marie. Angie Sweeney was killed, along with her three children, and another woman was shot by the ex-domestic partner. This femicide shook many of us across the country, particularly those of us from and connected to northern communities. We know that domestic violence is a very serious matter there; despite the awareness and the supports, women continue to be victims of domestic violence and gender-based violence.

In my own constituency, in February, Noreen Tait, who lived in O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, which is also known as South Indian Lake, was killed by her former partner. The chief and leaders in the community came out right away and said that there need to be more supports for women fleeing violence, more supports for women who are trying to get on safe ground. I want to get into that a bit, because today's bill is an important step, and like I said, we need to go a lot further and see a lot more from the federal government.

The Liberals talked a good talk when they talked about investing in women after the years of cuts and lack of investment from the Harper Conservatives, but the reality is that the Liberals certainly have not stepped up in the way we need them to. I want to focus particularly on the fact that indigenous women continue to be disproportionately targeted by violence. We have yet to see a red dress alert, which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been pushing for. We have yet to see the kind of investment we need in housing, particularly in first nations communities for on-reserve housing. This was something that was brought up after the murder of Noreen Tait. In a community like South Indian Lake, which is desperate for housing, Noreen had nowhere to go. Knowing that the closest women's shelter is over an hour away, she needed her own home. This was known to everybody in the community, and because of the lack of funding by Liberal and Conservative governments, there is a housing crisis on first nations. It is a factor that renders indigenous women particularly vulnerable.

We also know there need to be investments in education. Again, thinking of indigenous communities, they need to be able to support women pursuing their education and better opportunities. We need to see investment in health care. I am very concerned about the lack of support when it comes to people seeking treatment for addictions and also seeking to break the cycles of violence they face. We need to see support in terms of the child welfare system, recognizing there are vicious cycles that often disproportionately impact mothers and other women.

Today is an important step in taking action when it comes to ending domestic violence by including the recognition in the Criminal Code of coercive control. I certainly hope that all parties will support this and that we can see the bill come to fruition as soon as possible to give that tool to women fleeing violence and to give that tool to women and their children and to communities that are seeking to support them. However, we have a long way to go to be able to end the gender-based violence we are seeing on the rise in our country and to address the crisis of femicide in our country. Finally, here we are talking about violence against women, and it is incumbent on us to push for an end to violence against women here at home and around the world.

Today, I also want to take a moment to reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine, recognizing that over 4,000 children and over 10,000 civilians, many of them women, have been killed already. We need all hostages to be freed. We need to make sure there is a ceasefire to end this human catastrophe.

I hope the bill put forward by my colleague from Victoria becomes a reality as soon as possible.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, controlling or coercive conduct. The government certainly takes this matter extremely seriously. We recognize the fact that Bill C-332 proposes to create a new hybrid offence that would criminalize repeated controlling or coercive conduct toward a person to whom they are connected, including a spouse or other family member, which has a significant impact on the person at whom the conduct is directed.

Clearly, as I indicated, the government is interested in this. There are a few possible amendments that we would like to propose once this bill gets to committee. We are keen on seeing this through the process so that it can be deliberated at committee, studied and reported back to the House.

We acknowledge that gender-based violence and intimate partner violence have no place in Canada and our government has made a priority to end them in all their forms. The Minister of Justice called gender-based violence an epidemic because it is an appropriate characterization of a serious and pervasive social issue that has immediate and long-term impacts for victims, survivors and their families. In fact, 44% of Canadian women report having experienced some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. This is significant and a distressing figure.

The government is committed to ending gender-based violence in all its forms through preventative and responsive measures, including a responsive justice system. To that end, I do look forward to continuing this debate the next time it is before the House and getting it to committee so that we can bring legislation to this effect into law.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Before we go into Adjournment Proceedings, I will take a moment.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.

For those members who are going out to November 11 activities, please give our veterans and serving servicemen and women our best.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Emergency Preparedness

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I just pause to say that I appreciated the words reminding us of why we wear our poppies. Let us remember to thank and honour our veterans and our current men and women in uniform.

Here in Adjournment Proceedings this evening, I am returning to a question I asked June 12. It was a question for the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, who at the time was our minister for emergency preparedness. The emergency to which we are referring is, of course, the climate crisis, the climate emergency.

We have lived through quite a lot in my province of British Columbia. The summer of 2021 saw a heat dome, and in four days, 619 British Columbians died. We also saw forest fires throughout B.C. Then in November 2021, we had the atmospheric rivers that wiped out billions of dollars of infrastructure. The repairs are still taking place. I think it was July 1 that Lytton burned to the ground. There are still no properties built there.

Back in June of this year, I asked the former minister of emergency preparedness how we could better prepare. My assertion was that we are not prepared. I noted in my question that in California, insurance companies are now saying they are not going to insure for fires and floods because it is not an avoidable risk. The insurance industry is alarmed.

The response I had from the hon. minister was quite to point in saying the government is working to try to develop a national flood insurance plan. However, again, how do we manage these risks? There are multiple. There are the direct deaths in heat domes, the threat of fires, the threat of floods and the threat of hurricanes. We certainly experienced hurricane Fiona.

We have had the experience, which is undeniable, that burning fossil fuels has created an unstable global climate for which we are not prepared. I had hoped in raising this question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings that we could talk about how we better prepare. Obviously there is much more we could do to reduce emissions and reduce the ultimate impact that we are experiencing.

Mr. Speaker, within your home provinces of Nova Scotia, and I have the history of being from Cape Breton, we never had a hot, dry May, but several hot, dry Mays, one after another, left Nova Scotia experiencing wildfires this summer. We had a wildfire season across Canada like no other.

My position is this, and I am hoping the minister can engage with this in Adjournment Proceedings and that the government will respond. We need to create a standing emergency preparedness committee, with federal, provincial, municipal and indigenous governments. In that, we need to grapple with what to do to save lives.

Earlier this summer, I met with the mayor of the town of Ashcroft, British Columbia, who also plays a role as regional chair. She is discovering that if we want to use school buses to get people out of seniors residences, we better make sure over the course of the summer that the school district is insuring the school buses so they are available for emergencies.

There are multiple layers to this. We will do better if we create a standing committee that works collaboratively across all jurisdictions and all party lines and remembers we are in an emergency.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize and thank all firefighters, NGOs, CAF members and the public servants at the municipal, provincial and federal level who worked tirelessly to make sure that Canadians were safe. Together, they have faced the worst wildfire season ever recorded in Canada. More than 6,000 wildland fires burned more than 18 million hectares of land in Canada, but more importantly, they have forced more than 230,000 Canadians out of their homes. These Canadians now join the thousands affected by extreme weather events who have seen first-hand how the dire effects of climate change have destroyed communities and livelihoods.

This summer, our government came through for Canadians. When provinces were confronted with situations they could not face alone, we deployed the necessary resources to ensure the safety of everyone. During this year's wildfire season, the Government of Canada received requests for assistance related to wildfire situations in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. To help the provinces, we deployed the Canadian Armed Forces to assist in firefighting with on-the-ground resources and provided airlift capacity for the safe transport of evacuees, but our support involved multiple federal departments that proudly engaged in assisting Canadians, such as Employment and Social Development Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the RCMP, the Canadian Coast Guard, Health Canada, Parks Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, just to make sure all hands were on deck to help Canadians through the difficult times.

Climate change is putting an ever-growing strain on the finances of Canadians, but they can rest assured that, when disaster strikes, their federal government will be there for them. Through the disaster financial assistance arrangements, we can cover up to 90% of the cost of evacuation operations, restoring public works and infrastructure, as well as replacing or repairing basic, essential personal property of individuals, small businesses and farmsteads.

We know that these climate-related hazards pose significant risks to the safety of Canadians, as well as to our economy and our natural environment. We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners, indigenous organizations and non-governmental partners to strengthen Canada's ability to assess risks, mitigate the effects of disasters, prepare for them, respond to them and recover from them.

I would like to thank the member for her ideas on a new standing committee, which I am sure the government will consider.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the parliamentary secretary's answer is saying that they are looking at it. Let me just be clear that I am not talking about a standing committee of parliamentarians. I am talking about a working committee of governments: federal, provincial, territorial, indigenous and municipal.

We are at risk. People will lose their lives. The current government adaptation plan, for example, has a goal. I think they say that, by 2040, no more Canadians will die in heat domes. That is absurd. We should have the goal that, by tomorrow, no Canadians will die in heat domes. The problem is that the government's approach is that everyone needs to have air conditioning so people will not die in heat domes.

What we need to do is know how to save the lives of people who do not have air conditioning, which involves better first responders and knowing the things people can do to save lives, which include, for instance, cold showers or getting into the water. There are things we need to do so we are exchanging information with each other, and we need to do it now.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands's knowledge and experience. I agree that we can do more, and we must do more. I would reiterate that a key part of the federal response also comes from the many NGOs we proudly support such as the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, the Salvation Army and the Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada.

This summer we added an additional $82 million to help them maintain a skilled and qualified group of volunteer responders and emergency management professionals who can rapidly deploy, on short notice, support in the response to emergency events. This funding will enable them to recruit and train response teams, purchase equipment, and adapt their protocols and procedures to address the needs of specific communities, including vulnerable populations.

Carbon Pricing

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question I raised in the House on November 1 in response to the government’s announcement that excludes 97% from the three-year suspension of the carbon tax. Constituents from my riding of Yorkton—Melville are appalled by this blatant division of Canadians into two classes, and rightly so.

The province of Saskatchewan is a leading force in the advancement of clean energy and technology. Time and time again, the NDP-Liberal government seems to forget this. Therefore, let me take a moment to clearly outline how Saskatchewan is leading on this file and why we do not need a carbon tax to change our behaviours. We are and have been proactive and progressive on continuing to steward our environment. We love it; we depend on it.

Nearly 10 years ago, the Boundary Dam power station became the first power station in the world to successfully use carbon capture and storage technology. To match the 4.6 million tonnes of CO2 captured by this unit, we would need to plant more than 69 million trees and let them grow for 10 years to get the same results.

More recently, in 2022, Saskatchewan farmers exceeded all provinces in sequestering 12.8 million tonnes of carbon, which is the equivalent of taking 2.78 million cars off the road for a year.

We can also consider that Saskatchewan’s nuclear energy potential could fulfill 170% of Canada’s total annual electricity demands. As if this were not enough, the same province is the world’s leading supplier of uranium, with 90% of uranium being exported. It is estimated that one in 20 homes in the U.S. is powered by Saskatchewan uranium.

Let us not forget the fact that Saskatchewan is the world’s largest and greenest potash producer. Potash mines in the province produce only half the emissions per tonne of potash as competing jurisdictions and still manage to achieve 30% of global production.

These are only a few examples of Saskatchewan’s sustainable initiatives, and there are many more. Beyond what has already been accomplished, experts estimate that 131,000 clean energy jobs will be added between 2025 and 2050 in Saskatchewan as the province continues to move toward a net-zero economy.

Given all this, one would expect to see strong support for my province from the Liberal government. Sadly, this has not been and will not be the case. From the NDP-Liberal government, and now a new carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc, we only see inflationary taxes that are hurting our families.

The Minister of Rural Economic Development has confirmed what we knew all along: The carbon tax was never about climate change. It has always been about politics. Canadians have been told that reducing emissions will not exempt them from the tax, whereas voting Liberal will.

Instead of helping struggling families, the Prime Minister is dividing Canadians into two classes: those who get relief from his punitive taxes and those who do not. The Prime Minister is only concerned about his party’s plummeting poll numbers, not about doing what is right for all Canadians.

The people of my province and riding are resilient. Cold winters with temperatures dropping down to -40°C do not stop us. Driving long distances in the freezing cold weather is something we have to do, because we are rural communities.

Ninety per cent of Saskatchewan households are heated with natural gas; because they do not vote Liberal, they are given no relief from this punitive tax that is making life unaffordable. In terms of the 10% increase to the rural payment, a whole total of $11.33 will not even buy a Big Mac meal. Canadians can now see more than ever that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Even he knows this, but he is only willing to relieve the burden off the backs of 3% of Canadians.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, the government understands that many Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet. That is why we have been putting forward measures since 2015 to support the Canadians who need it the most. For example, we have increased the old age security benefit for people aged 75 and over. We strengthened the Canada workers benefit to better support millions of low- and modest-income workers, and we increased benefits for low-income seniors by enhancing the guaranteed income supplement.

Similarly, it was to support lower-income Canadians that the government made the decision to temporarily pause the application of the federal fuel charge on deliveries of heating oil. We did this not simply because it is a source of home heating, but because heating oil is the most expensive form of home heating. Because heating oil is expensive, lower-income Canadians face particular hardship incurring these costs. Low-income and rural residents are trapped in a vicious cycle. They are stuck having to pay for the most expensive form of home heating, the cost of which is preventing them from investing in cleaner, more affordable forms of home heating.

I would like to make something absolutely clear: Heating oil is the only exception. There will be no other carve-outs from the federal price on pollution for other forms of home heating, period. Our focus is to help Canadians move away from using heating oil to heat their homes. That is why we are turning to heat pumps, which are, by far, one of the best ways for homeowners to move away from heating oil. Compared to other electric heating sources, heat pumps are two to three times more efficient.

To strengthen the program, the federal government is working with the provinces and territories to increase the amount of federal assistance eligible homeowners can receive for the installation of a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000. This will add up to an additional $5,000 in grants to complement the provincial and territorial contributions through codelivery arrangements. This would make the average heat pump and installation free for low- to medium-income households as we continue to minimize upfront costs and make federal programs even easier to access for all households. To help Canadians make the switch, an initial payment of $250 will be offered to low- and middle-income households that currently heat with oil, if they register and have a heat pump installed under a federal-provincial program.

The reality is that Canada is deeply impacted by climate change, and inaction such as that proposed by the opposition is simply not possible anymore. We have to do something to fight climate change, or Canadians will face disastrous consequences. Let us not forget that climate change threatens not only the health and safety of Canadians but also their financial security and their economic well-being.

Fortunately, there is an effective way to fight climate change, and that is what we are doing with our pollution pricing system. This system encourages innovation, reduces emissions and promotes greener behaviour. What is more, it gives Canadian householders and business owners the flexibility to decide when and how they want to make these changes. Our pricing system is here to stay.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear: Any of the band-aid benefits that the government has brought forward and any changes it has made on behalf of seniors have been negated by its increased taxes, its inflation and its interest rates. The government has spent all of the money, borrowed all of the money and printed all of the money it can. That is why our country is in the condition it is in. The Liberals do not get it, and their gimmicks are not helping Canadians. The Prime Minister has admitted he is doubling down on the quadrupling of the carbon tax for everyone but the 3% whom he found himself needing to respond to because of the polls and the fact that he was so unpopular because of the carbon tax.

Canadians cannot afford the current Liberal government or its taxes. Because of the current government, the prices of heat, gas and groceries have skyrocketed, and the lives of Canadians are being hurt. Canadian winters are cold, and people need to heat their home. The recent three-year suspension of the carbon tax on home heating oil is an acknowledgement of what we have been saying on this side of the House: The carbon tax is hurting Canadians and making life unaffordable.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something must be done about climate change, and experts agree that our system is the right thing to do. Our government is committed to helping Canadians transition from heating oil to heat pumps, which are a much greener option. In fact, the Prime Minister recently announced measures to provide financial support to Canadians who are making this transition.

Sports

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be fairly direct with the government about the Ignoble Purpose Award it received a few weeks ago. After hearing testimony from survivors and whistle-blowers, and considering that 98% of the 114 witnesses heard by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage called for a public inquiry into abuse and mistreatment in sports, it is clear to me that any other option is no longer an option at all, and I am not going to dismiss their request out of hand. We need to get to the bottom of the systemic problems in sport.

Being the recipient of an ignoble award is a reminder of the importance of integrity in sports, as well as the underlying responsibilities. Sport is not just about competitions and medals. It plays an essential role in the health, well-being and development of individuals. It reinforces the values of honesty, teamwork and self-improvement while fostering inclusion and diversity, which enable people from all walks of life to come together around a common passion. Integrity in sports is compromised by the many abuses that have been reported and the wilful blindness of government, not to mention conflict situations.

In England, investigations into foreign interference in sport are under way. This has ramifications all the way to Canada. The minister is all too aware of this, since she is a former employee of the Canadian Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee's franchise in Canada.

Every time the Minister of Sport appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we reminded her of how Sport Canada and the funding of multi-sport organizations are at the root of many of the problems we are seeing right now. That is what has been coming out of the committee hearings that have taken place this past year. Has she forgotten that she is accountable for failing to follow up on three separate requests to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage since July 26, 2022? She was called to appear on December 13, 2022, April 17, 2023 and again on June 1, 2023. Patience has its limits.

Until we actually have some guarantees in place, I am prepared to stand up in the House as often as I am permitted and I will raise this issue in every forum to continue to consistently get this message across. Perhaps I sound like a broken record on this issue, but I think that this is something that we can control and that we cannot let slide.

The Government of Canada won an ignoble purpose award for its apathy toward abuse in sport. This should not be seen as a mere red flag, but a full-on red alert. A public inquiry is long overdue. Sport does not deserve contempt, but the blatant indifference toward this issue is simply unacceptable. Since the appointment of a new Minister of Sport, the silence has been deafening. We hear nothing but crickets.

I would just like to remind the House of the motion I brought on June 22, 2022, a year and a half ago, which was adopted unanimously:

That the House call for an independent inquiry into Hockey Canada's handling of the events of June 2018, in order to determine whether this was an isolated event or whether there are deficiencies in Hockey Canada's handling of reported complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment and other types of misconduct.

It is crystal clear that the government has done nothing about this issue. Though the motion was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons, it did not spur the government to action. The minister has repeatedly been asked to appear before the sport committee and hold herself to account. In May, the Minister of Sport held a press conference at which she announced she would launch an independent public inquiry. That was more than six months ago, but there is still no sign of that public inquiry.

This Parliament's very credibility is at stake, along with the credibility of all parents and athletes who put their kids in organized sport. When will the government launch this independent public inquiry?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his important work on the issue of safe sport.

I would like to begin by thanking and honouring the survivors. I admire the courage of those who came forward so we could learn, better protect our children and improve our systems and processes. What happened to them should not have happened. We are committed to ensuring they get support.

Sport has the power to create positive change. Sport fills communities. It ignites national pride. However, with insufficient safeguards and accountability, sport can also do harm.

Unfortunately, not every participant in sport has positive experiences. There continue to be calls from victims and survivors in the broader sport community to address power imbalances between athletes and sport organizations, provide greater protections against maltreatment and hold organizations and individuals accountable.

I am committed to a process that will investigate the sport system in Canada, one that is trauma-informed, that supports athlete survivors and that draws on outside experts. This is so important for the future of sport, and we need to take the time to do it right.

Since 2018, our government has been working to ensure safe, welcoming, and inclusive environments for everyone, while requiring all sport organizations funded by the Government of Canada to take measures to prevent and address maltreatment in sport.

The Government of Canada also supported the development of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, or UCCMS. That is a key example of the positive momentum that can be created when our government works closely with its partners, in this case national sport leaders and subject matter experts. The result is that the UCCMS is the core document that sets harmonized rules to be adopted by sport organizations that receive funding from the Government of Canada to advance a respectful sport culture that delivers quality, inclusive, accessible, welcoming and safe sport experiences.

In June 2021, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner launched its operations as the entity responsible for administering the UCCMS and overseeing complaints of maltreatment. The office uses trauma-informed processes that are compassionate and efficient and that provide fairness, respect and equity to all parties involved.

These measures are only part of the solution. The responsibility of ensuring a safe sport environment must be shared by all leaders in the field.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for being here, for working with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and for her empathy. I also want to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity has a reasonable excuse for his absence today.

I want to remind everyone that there is a crisis in sport, and everyone knows it. Survivors deserve more consideration from the Liberal government members who are responsible for sport. Athletes and their families are calling for urgent recognition that the situation is dire, especially as the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris draw near. The Bloc Québécois is therefore calling for immediate action and urging the minister to stop playing hide-and-seek and launch an independent public inquiry into abuse in sport, as described in Bill 1.

Why is she waiting to launch the public inquiry? Why have there been so many resignations at various organizations, such as Own The Podium, Sport Canada and Hockey Canada, to name just a few? The house of cards is collapsing. It is time for answers.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety of sport participants is a shared responsibility. That is why all of the ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation have committed to establishing an independent third-party mechanism within their respective jurisdictions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 20, at 11 a.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 7.

(The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.)