Debates of June 4th, 2024

Criminal Code

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that it is not often that all MPs agree in this chamber. Especially around this time of year, politics can be particularly divisive and partisan. However, all members from all parties have come together to support my private member's bill and support survivors of intimate partner violence, and I want to extend my gratitude. I hope that we can all think of this bill as an example of the great things we can accomplish when we reach across the aisle and collaborate. When we work together to put aside political differences, focusing on the needs of our constituents, we can change their lives for the better.

In Canada, a woman is killed by an intimate partner every six days. Let that sink in. Every six days, we lose a woman to intimate partner violence, and it disproportionately impacts indigenous women. Of the women killed, 22% are indigenous.

I want to acknowledge that yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report, and after five years, only two out of 231 calls for justice have been implemented. When the report was tabled, the commission confirmed that the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls crisis is a genocide, yet the government has delayed and delayed. Former commissioner Michèle Audette says that she has “lost faith” in the government's ability to tackle this issue. I want to remind my colleagues that as elected officials in Canada, we have a responsibility to stop the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

The 2019 report highlights that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts indigenous women and girls. In the same way that all parties have worked across party lines to support my bill on coercive control, I call on MPs in this House to put aside political differences, tackle the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and implement the calls for justice, including fully funding a red dress alert.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her leadership and advocacy on this.

We know that coercive control is one of the most common precursors to femicide, even when there have been no other instances of physical violence. I have spoken in the past about how coercive control has impacted my family, but I have also heard from hundreds of people across Canada who have written to me, met with me and spoken to me about how coercive control has impacted them either directly or through loved ones.

Each person who shared their story told me how grateful they are that this piece of legislation exists and that they hope no one will ever have to go through what they experienced. While each story is unique, the pain is very similar. The pervasiveness of coercive control is all-encompassing, and the trauma is deeply rooted. One story that sticks with me is from a constituent of mine. She has asked me not to use her name out of fear of retribution from her abuser, but she has given me permission to share her story. For her anonymity, we will call her Lisa.

Lisa spoke to me about how she experienced coercive control by her children's father. Her abuser had taken over every single aspect of her life, and like so many other stories, the abuse eventually became physical. When she was finally able to escape that relationship, her abuser began to control her through her children. The father of Lisa's children would withhold her children from her and threaten them. She had to do what he wanted just to see her own children. When the issue of child support was in front of the courts, the judges ignored the fact that Lisa had been sexually assaulted and abused by the father of her children, who were now being withheld from her.

She spoke about how the legal system favours men so heavily that even when Lisa's daughter spoke to the lawyers and the judges about the situation with her parents and when she spoke about being scared, if she seemed prepared, there would be allegations that Lisa was coaching her and that she was manipulated. Then if the child's recounting of events was missing details, then there were doubts about the validity of the story.

At the end of the day, both parents now have equal access to the children, despite the abuse, despite the coercive control and despite the harm that continues to be done to these children.

The reality is that, currently, there is no law that protects people from situations like this, from situations like the one that Lisa went through. Lisa told me she is extremely grateful that this legislation is moving forward, but she spoke about how much more work needs to be done. She worries about the systemic issues that will still exist even if, and hopefully when, this bill, Bill C-332, is passed and implemented.

A key part in Lisa's story is the fact that in every step of the judicial process, the system does not favour people who come forward and share about the abuse they are experiencing. When people report abuse to police, they are often turned away due to a lack of evidence. If their case is accepted by the officer and is brought forward to a judge, they risk the case being thrown out again. If they are one of the few who get to have their case heard in court, judges and lawyers have no requirement to be trauma-informed.

Many judges, prosecutors and other individuals in the criminal justice system do not have the training needed to understand the dynamics of intimate partner violence. There are also judges who have made sexist and misogynist comments during trials and judges who have ill-informed preconceptions about victims of gender-based violence.

The enforcement of this legislation would be incredibly important. While many judges who would oversee cases of coercive control would be provincial, the federal government has a responsibility to lead by example and to ensure that judges and lawyers who would work on cases of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, receive adequate training and that they be trauma-informed.

Survivors of coercive control are not only abused by their partners but also face retraumatization by the legal system itself. This needs to end, but that will only be accomplished if the government stops delaying and dragging its feet, and makes the reforms needed to support survivors of intimate partner violence. Survivors need a criminal justice system that supports them instead of revictimizing them.

Today, while Lisa is out of the relationship with her abuser, he is still able to control her through her children. While there are pieces of this legislation that touch on the fact that coercive control can include having children withheld from people or having threats of violence against children to control people, the topic of parental alienation is not considered in this legislation.

We have heard from stakeholders like the National Association of Women and the Law that parental alienation is a controversial concept not founded in scientific evidence. It is used in clinical and legal settings to describe when children are refusing or resisting contact with a parent. Abusers use accusations of parental alienation as a form of coercive control.

Unfortunately, this concept continues to be weaponized against women in abusive situations. It is weaponized to silence them, to remove children from their care and to remove them from the care of the victim of abuse, simply because the children do not want to spend time with the abusive parent.

Organizations and frontline workers have been ringing the alarm bell on this. More than half of workers in women's shelters in Quebec describe the accusations of parental alienation as a core priority for their shelter or their organization. It is one of their primary concerns.

It is a real issue that has impacts not only on mothers, but also on children who may be facing situations of abuse or witnessing that abuse. The impact of that abuse is so widespread, and it affects women who are in women's shelters or in the health care system, as they access our judicial system, and it has impacts on how they participate in our economy. While I hope that this bill, Bill C-332, can be voted on and passed, I urge parliamentarians to consider the very urgent need to train judges, to train everyone in our criminal justice system, to change the legislation, to better support victims of intimate partner violence and to better support parents facing discrimination in our criminal justice system.

I want to take a moment to thank the many organizations that have come together to support this bill, Bill C-332, and who have had a hand in crafting it. I am thinking of Sagesse and many of the organizations in my home community of Victoria, which includes the Victoria Women's Transition House and the Cridge transition house.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his continued efforts to ensure that we criminalize coercive control. He first tabled a version of this bill in a previous Parliament and has been an incredible ally not only to victims of abuse, but also an ally to me in this Parliament and an ally to women who face gender-based violence on a daily basis.

I also want to thank the courageous people who have come forward to share their stories, and they include the many survivors of intimate partner violence, the family members who have shared their stories of loss and the professionals who have been working on the front lines of the crisis of gender-based violence and the crisis of intimate partner violence and who have been continuing to advocate every day.

I also want to thank my sister who shared her story and who allowed me to share her story. She has pushed and supported me throughout this process to make sure that we are better supporting survivors of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence.

These issues are so deeply rooted in our society, and we must do more. As we have seen a rise in intimate partner violence, we know that the cost of living crisis, the pandemic and all of these stresses have a detrimental impact on intimate partner violence. We need to come together in this chamber not only to pass this bill, Bill C-332, but also to commit to giving victims and survivors the tools they need to not only leave abusive situations, but also to find justice in our justice system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that there was a fairly high sense of co-operation at the committee stage. I understand that there were a number of government amendments accepted. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regards to the process where it would appear as if there is virtually all-party support, and I think we saw some of that at the committee stage.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we did see all-party support for this bill.

I also want to highlight some of the important changes that were made at committee. I thank the members on the justice committee for ensuring that this piece of legislation is robust, that we have a more robust legal definition of what constitutes coercive control and that we actually address some concerns that were raised by organizations to make sure that judges take into account who the vulnerable party is when these situations occur.

I have to mention that the justice committee has done incredible work, but it had this study two years ago. It has been two years, and the government, unfortunately, has waited for a private member's bill to take this step. I encourage it not to do the same thing when it comes to the other critical reforms that we need in our criminal justice system.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this very important bill. I got out of a meeting just moments ago with somebody who was talking about parental alienation.

Can the member share her thoughts on that? What does parental alienation look like? What are things that we should be aware of, especially when it comes to coercive control and understanding the complexity of it?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the story I shared about Lisa is an example of this. I have heard from so many women who have had accusations of parental alienation weaponized against them and who have been in courtrooms where judges do not have an understanding of what domestic abuse and what intimate partner violence does to women and children. There is a need for an understanding of gender dynamics when it comes to addressing these issues.

We need training for judges, for prosecutors and for everyone involved in the criminal justice system. We need the government to seriously look at the issue of parental alienation and to consider whether legislative changes are needed to better protect survivors of abuse.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for her speech. We share the same concern about coercive control.

Today, I am thinking about Mirabelle who, during the pandemic, made me aware of this issue. The number of women sharing their experiences on her blog skyrocketed during the pandemic.

On March 8, as part of International Women's Day, Quebec's National Assembly called on the federal government to criminalize coercive control this year.

On April 17, I attended a symposium on violence against women, organized by a consortium of community groups from the Brome-Missisquoi and Haute-Yamaska regions. At this symposium, participants also asked that the federal government look into this issue, and we talked about my colleague's bill.

I do have a question: Why is this taking so long?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her questions and comments, and for her continued advocacy in combatting gender-based violence and intimate partner violence

I also want to extend my thanks to the province of Quebec for writing to the federal government and calling on it to make this legislative change. It has been two years since the justice committee tabled this report, and the government's inaction has meant that more women have faced coercive control without the tools to address it. It also means that because coercive control is one of the most common precursors to femicide, more women die. The more we delay the needed reforms to support survivors and victims of intimate partner violence, the more women die.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the many words the member for Victoria has put on the record this evening on a very important and substantive piece of legislation. It reminds me of Keira's law, which was introduced by the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. It was a significant piece of legislation.

On several occasions here this evening, the member has already referred to the importance of education for judges. Of course, it is important that we recognize judicial independence, there is no doubt about that, and yet there is a responsibility for us to take the necessary actions to improve our judicial system. That is what I looked at with Rona Ambrose's bill and the manner in which the government approached that legislation. It received unanimous support because it was a good, solid, sound idea.

It is interesting that we now have another piece of legislation that is not from the government, but a member of the opposition. The reason I brought up the importance of the legislation being passed at committee stage is that a series of amendments were brought forward and, because of the general goodwill from all political parties, many of them passed. My daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has brought forward Keira's law. The premier of the province is very sympathetic. The other minister responsible is not as much. I would like to think that the NDP government in Manitoba would reflect positively on the law itself. It would be great to see Bill 209 pass because it deals with education. I like to think, whether it's Rona Ambrose's law or Keira's law being adopted in other jurisdictions, it rises above political interference of any form, that people get on side, accept it and try to get it through their appropriate legislature.

With regard to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls over the years, one of the first things that we did as a government was to commission a public inquiry into it, or a task force, that came up with a number of recommendations. There are over 200. I do not think it is fair to say that only two recommendations have been acted on. I suspect we would find that a number of things take place that show goodwill towards a number of the recommendations, as some of those recommendations might include other parties being involved.

One of the things I have recognized for many years is that in our judicial system, no one jurisdiction has complete control. The federal government, the provincial government and, I would even suggest, the municipal governments that have law enforcement agencies, all have a role to play. Then, on the other side, there is the whole idea of judicial independence. All of those things need to be factored in. On murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, we are moving forward. In the last budget, the red dress alert was getting off the ground. It is going to be a pilot project in my home province of Manitoba, and I see that as a very strong, positive thing.

With respect to the content of the legislation, one of the critical things to take note of is the issue of controlling behaviour. I like the explanation that was provided to me and I want to read it.

When we think of coercive control, it states that “coercive control” or “coercive and controlling behaviour” have been “used in both family and criminal law contexts to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate relationships and serves to entrap victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, some of which may constitute criminal offences in and of themselves, such as assault or uttering threats, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate the individual's in incidents in which abusers exercise control. Coercive control is concerned with the cumulative impact of the abuser's conduct on the victim.”

Coercive control offences have been implemented in some countries. We have seen that over the last number of years, but it has only really had that impact within the last decade. Therefore, it is nice to see that we are moving forward, albeit in the form of a private member's bill. There is nothing wrong with using a private member's bill in a situation like this. We know the degree to which the government's legislative agenda is fairly full and is taking up time; it is becoming very difficult to get legislation passed. The thing about private members' bills is that there is a time allocation automatically. It is a program that ultimately will see legislation get through.

In this situation, and I made reference to it earlier, if we look at the number of amendments that were made, and the context in which those amendments were received, we see that there were substantive amendments made to the legislation that made it a whole lot easier for government members, in particular, to get on board. I like to think the real reason for doing that is because no one here inside the chamber would not recognize the negative impact that coercive and controlling behaviour has on society. There are far too many victims of that sort of behaviour, which takes place all the time, and we need to look at reforms that are going to improve life situations for families. Although we think of a victim being a spouse, quite often in that family unit the children are also victims.

It was highlighted in recent history through the pandemic, when there were more people staying at home and many relationships were being tested: I believe there was a lot more of that coercive behaviour taking place. It is one of the reasons why, as a government, we have been very supportive financially of women's organizations. I am thinking of the fine work that was being done in many communities across the country. For example, I think of Osborne House, which has been in Winnipeg for many decades. It has supported not only the women who go there as short-term occupants, but also those who see it as a resource that provides information to individuals who are being abused.

I am pleased to see that the legislation has gotten to the point it has today. I am expecting it to receive substantial support because of the general attitude in recognizing just how important the issue is. Fortunately, for all of us, we have the opportunity to see some tangible action on it.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful that this bill has been brought forward. This is a really important bill that we need to discuss. In my time here in the House of Commons, I have had the opportunity to do a lot of work when it comes to violence against women, domestic violence, intergenerational trauma and impact to families.

According to American forensic social worker Evan Stark, who is at the leading edge on this, coercive control is characterized by a pattern of negative behaviours that aim to intimidate, threaten and humiliate a person in front of friends and family; take control over aspects of everyday life such as where a person can go or who they can see; repeatedly put a person down; make credible threats of violence or economic oppression; and entrap them in an abusive cycle.

Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, recognizes the dynamic between this and intimate partner violence and how intimate partner violence is different from other forms of harassment or assault. When it comes to a trusting relationship between partners, we know it is a very different relationship when a person is a subordinate to someone in charge or when a person has any vulnerability. Although the Criminal Code does recognize sexual assault and violence, it does not dig deep enough when it comes to coercive control.

I would like to talk about this bill a little bit. The amendments the committee made are very well done. I specifically looked at these amendments because the bill had to get into the language regarding what coercive control was. Getting into the details, we have to understand the pattern of conduct; we need to understand that it is not just a single event. Many times, police are called to a single event of a physical nature, but coercive control is something that happens time and time again. Seeing that it is fully detailed in here, I would really like to thank the members of the committee who did great work on this. We need to make sure that when we are talking about it, if we are going to educate on it, if we want to ensure that the police know how to enforce it, we need to have a good understanding of it. The committee has done a great job on that.

The exact issue is when it comes to reporting. Education has to be paramount here. One of the greatest tragedies we have is that when abuse does happen, especially to women, they do not call. We know that, in over 90% of cases of violence against women, the victims are not calling the police to report. We have to look at the group of people who are not reporting. In that group we find more marginalized women who are becoming more vulnerable. Often, they are not reporting because of trust. If somebody has reported once or twice before, will they call back if it continues to happen? Without coercive control in the Criminal Code, this will not happen.

It is so hard to prove what coercive control is. By indicating specifically in the bill what it is, it gives much greater depth to the courts and to the police to make sure that we are actually laying the charges that are necessary. To survivors, though, this is a very difficult thing for them. Survivors of coercive control are fighting between trying to protect their children and protect themselves; they are making sure that they do not lose their children, making sure that they are protecting their children from their perpetrator. In many cases, we are looking at revictimization. We have heard time and time again of people going into the courts after accusing somebody and being revictimized. The NDP member who sponsored this bill saw what impact coercive control can have.

We need to ensure that our courts are informed by trauma, that those working with victims of violence and intergenerational trauma are trained, because these are very vulnerable people. It is not just about a person being hit and getting bruised, but it is also about what that does to a person inside. Many of these victims who have come forward are already ripped apart, so making sure that we can support these people is very important.

I would like to read a few quotes from women's organizations because, when it comes to their support of this bill or some of their concerns, they have been very active. I would really like to thank these women's organizations that are out there working day in and day out to make sure that women, when they are looking for shelters and financial support, receive support. Luke's Place is one of these organizations. The legal director at Luke's Place, a family law support centre for abused women in Oshawa, says the majority of women who are abused do not report it to police and therefore would not benefit by this new law.

That is one of the concerns that they brought forward, and that is why it is important that we have all of this information. She worries that with this law, women who defend themselves from abusive partners might themselves be accused of coercive control. That is why we have to talk about coercive control and parental alienation, and understand how all of these pieces come together to create a really complex issue.

We also have to wonder, will the police be able to enforce this? When victims are making these phone calls, it may be the first call or it may be their 11th call. We do not know. We know that it usually takes up to 11 times for a woman to make that first call after being violated. We do not know what call that is. However, if they have lost trust in the system, there is an issue.

As we are moving forward, we need to see what is positive and what is negative. How can we control this to ensure that when victims are coming forward, they do not, in turn, get forced into coercive control, that the tables do not get turned on them?

We have heard so much testimony from women across Canada, whether it is at the justice committee or at the status of women committee. We have heard from women who have come forward and shared their stories about the tables being turned on them. When they came forward, they were talking about not having money, being followed, being stalked, and a variety of different things that could happen, such as name-calling, all of these abuses, and the fact that at the end of the day they did not have that support. These are the things that we need to talk about.

One of the biggest things, and this is what I think this legislation does, is that it provides a tool. It provides something to go back on and to lean on. This would allow early intervention. If people are educated, they may be more aware of it. They may be more aware of what is going on in a person's life.

Only 30% of women, of people, have visible injuries as a result of domestic violence, and only a certain number of people experience, perhaps, emotional, sexual or financial parts of this abuse. When we know that 30% have bruises, what about the other 70%? What does that look like?

Why do we need to do this? Just moments ago, people were talking about the correlation between women and femicide. These things are happening. Between 2011 and 2021, police reported 1,125 gender-related homicides of women and girls in Canada. Of these homicides, two-thirds were perpetrated by an intimate partner, 28% by a family member, 5% by a friend or an acquaintance, and the remaining 1% by a stranger. We know that, in many cases, women are victims of their own partner, the people they trust the most in their lives.

Between 2011 and 2021, in all the gender-related homicides of women and girls, the largest proportion died by stabbing. Now we have to look at this. Is this a first-time incident? What happened prior to this? When we look at this, we will find that this would not have been the first time of violence. It is much greater than that. Although most homicide victims are men and boys, women and girls are disproportionately killed by someone they know. That is exactly what we need to talk about when we are looking at coercive control.

I want to end this with one last example. This is the case of Daniella Mallia. She went to the police three days before her death to report that her ex-boyfriend was harassing and threatening her via text. She repeatedly told police that her ex-boyfriend's behaviour caused her to fear for her safety. This was three days before this young woman was murdered.

We can do more. We can do better. I fully support this bill. I look forward to its passing in this House today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my speech with a sad statistic. As of May 28, 2024, in Quebec, there have been as many femicides as in all of 2023. My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑332, which would amend “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”.

This is a subject that is very important to me since I raised this issue at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we are currently conducting a study on the matter. I will talk about the definition of coercive control, some of the details of this bill and a few reservations I have about the bill.

First, coercive and controlling behaviour includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner, and against their children, belongings or pets.

Coercive and controlling behaviour does not relate to a single incident, but a pattern of behaviour that takes place repeatedly. It is important to understand that certain behaviours, taken in isolation might be considered normal, but it is the pattern and repetition of those behaviours that make them coercive or controlling violence.

Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who took part in the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, indicated that there is no universal definition. However, a few definitions were discussed during the study, including restricting a person's movements, refusing them access to the home, controlling what they eat, disconnecting phone lines, breaking their cellphone and preventing them from going to work or to school. Taken together, these behaviours amount to coercive control.

Coercive control is low-level and repetitive. It often does not involve physical violence and takes away a person's sense of personal agency. Victims no longer make decisions based on what their own best interests are or what their driving motivators are, but they make decisions based on fear of what the other person will do to them if they don't make a decision in a certain way. It is generally understood as a course of intimidating, degrading and regulatory practices used by abusers to instill fear and threat into the everyday lives of their victims. Victims are deprived of their liberty and autonomy. The intent is to gain and maintain power and control and strip away a person's freedom and their sense of self.

Abusive behaviours are intended to cause fear and gain power and control over a woman’s thoughts, beliefs and actions. Controlling another person’s thoughts, beliefs and actions does not require specific overt acts of violence, although those acts certainly may be occurring as well.

Abusive partners use 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 control tactics. In some cases, abusive partners use state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control women through custody of and access to the children. The legal system is used as a weapon against the victim.

Second, I want to look more specifically at Bill C-332, introduced by the member for Victoria. It is part of a growing trend among legislators who work against coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights produced a report on this issue. I mentioned it earlier. It was tabled in the House on April 27, 2021.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying this issue. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women dealt with this issue during their study on safe practice in sport.

In the last Parliament, the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke introduced Bill C‑247 in October 2020. In November 2021, during this Parliament, he introduced Bill C‑202, which is essentially a new attempt to revive the legal framework, definitions and criminal consequences relating to coercive or controlling violence.

Bill C‑332 is the NDP's third attempt to put this issue on the agenda. The fact that it passed first reading and was added to the order of precedence of the House on September 20, 2003, makes Bill C-332 the most successful so far and the most likely to complete its legislative journey.

More recently, there was also Bill C‑233 from the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle. It received royal assent on April 27, 2023, after study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This piece of legislation amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence and before issuing a release order, to consider whether it would be desirable for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to require continuing education seminars on matters related to sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence, including controlling or coercive behaviour, is an integral part of this problem. It is a scourge. It is difficult to put an exact figure on the scale of violence in this country, as most cases are not reported to the police. This is the main obstacle when it comes to identifying and documenting this behaviour as well as implementing solutions for victims.

In her testimony before the committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs at the research, results and delivery branch of the Department for Women and Gender Equality, reported that approximately 36% of domestic violence incidents and only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police.

Based on data reported by police services in 2018, women in rural areas experienced the highest overall rates of intimate partner violence in the country. The committee also noted that marginalized women, including indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and migrant women, face the greatest risk of violence, not to mention children. Furthermore, although coercive and controlling violence can occur in other contexts, it is present in 95% of relationships where there is domestic violence as we know it.

Today, this coercive and controlling violence is facilitated by technological advancements. GPS systems make it possible to track women. Small cameras can be used to film them. Smart phones and social media platforms are used to spy on them. All these means and tools make it easier for abusers to continue to extend harm, isolation and control regardless of victims’ physical locations. As we saw, there are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, impersonating the victim, sending persistent threatening messages, or even distributing private information or sexual content about the victim.

Third, the committee noted a few problems in enforcing the current law in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence. I will go over them quickly. The victims distrust current mechanisms, police services and the justice system and have little confidence they will adequately address their trauma. Unfortunately, this attitude is particularly pervasive among groups that are most often targeted by these acts, in other words, indigenous or racialized women, marginalized populations and immigrants. Women who are immigrants or who do not have Canadian citizenship fear the repercussions that reporting the abuse will have on their immigration application.

Furthermore, several stakeholders report that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously. They know that there are myths out there and they want to avoid being judged by institutions on their credibility when they come forward. It is undeniable that the fear of being blamed in turn means that few victims come forward. Victims are limited in what they can do because they may be dependent on the abuser, financially for example. They are caught in a vicious cycle where they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

This point was raised by several witnesses during a committee study on women's economic empowerment. While aspects of coercive control and controlling behaviour may be present, the police and the justice systems often say that the victim's word alone is not enough to file a complaint. The numerous cases of femicide and harassment show the limitations and major flaw of the infamous “810 order” in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and be forced to use a monitoring device.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C‑332. However, we believe there are significant shortcomings that will need to be studied in committee. For example, we will have to study the possibility of expanding the scope of the bill so that ex-partners and other family members can testify in order to address the problem of one person's word against another's. We will also have to address the severity of the sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violence, as well as the connection between the new offence and the impact on family law and protection issues. Many other aspects need to be studied.

In conclusion, I would say that we need to have a debate on the duty to protect the victims of controlling or coercive behaviour relative to the obvious right of the accused to a fair and equitable trial. Let us continue to reflect on this issue. That being said, this is done elsewhere in the world and there is not one country that would backtrack on this issue of coercive control.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, for many reasons, I am really pleased to be standing to debate the current bill at third reading. I am happy, because I first tried to bring this issue to the attention of the House nearly four years ago. It has been a long struggle to get the bill to this state. I am also happy because the bill does something quite important: It recognizes that, in intimate partner relationships, there are other forms of violence than broken bones and bruises, and they are equally harmful. I am happy that all parties have now come to support the bill.

We owe a great debt of thanks to the survivors who came forward to committee and publicly told their stories of suffering coercive and controlling behaviour. We owe it to the women's shelter workers, who gave very eloquent testimony about the need not only for better legislation but also for better supports for women who suffer from domestic violence. We also owe a debt of thanks to the police who talked about their frustration. In particular, those in the Saanich Police Department told me that, many times, officers visited homes that they knew they would come back to. They knew that there would be bruises and broken bones next time, but they did not have the tool they needed to intervene.

Finally, I want to thank the member for Victoria. I took this, as my own private bill, as far as I could get it in the last Parliament. I have been very pleased to work with her in this Parliament to make sure that the bill gets across the finish line.

There is an urgency here. Quite frankly, I was worried that the bill might get lost in the rancour of the end of a sitting in a minority Parliament. I want to express my thanks to the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who did some important negotiations today that will help us get the bill back in front of the House next week so that we can pass it before we rise.

Why is it urgent? Of course, we all know the terrible statistic that, once every six days, a woman in this country is murdered by their intimate partner. Not as familiar is the statistic that nearly 25% of those are indigenous women. Given the promises that we have all made in this Parliament, especially the government, to act on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, this becomes a part of that package.

It is also urgent because, often, the women who are subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour are among the more marginalized in our society, whether they are indigenous women; new Canadians, who may lack the connections and supports in the community to escape such relationships; or those within my own community, the queer community.

We recognize, and we heard very clearly, that there is a concern about ensuring that the bill not do further harm. There were some extensive amendments made in committee to prevent revictimization as much as we can for those who survive, as well as to prevent the use of the bill by the actual abusers to continue their coercive and controlling behaviour.

Two of those amendments are quite important. One would forbid those who self-represent from being allowed to cross-examine their partners. These are perpetrators who engage in coercive and controlling behaviour and who represent themselves in court. Instead, the judge would appoint an independent lawyer to do that. That is an important part of avoiding revictimization by the abusive partner. The second is equally important. It says that, in findings of guilt under this offence, the judge must consider the overall context of the relationship. In common language, this means that the judge would have to ensure that the actual abuser, not the victim of coercive and controlling behaviour, is the one being charged. It is my hope that, after seeing these important amendments, the other place will also act expeditiously to pass the bill.

In addition to the women who are subject to coercive and controlling behaviour and the harms they suffer, and in addition to those who eventually die by femicide, which, 95% of the time, is preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour, the other victims of coercive and controlling behaviour are children. Children who are in households where coercive and controlling behaviour is taking place quite often suffer enormous psychological damage as a result of this behaviour as it goes on.

That leads to a related question that the bill does not address, and that is parental alienation. As I like to say when we talk about family law, this is not a thing. There are people who try to use the concept of parental alienation against their partners, saying that it is not their behaviour that has caused their children to be afraid but their partner, who is alienating the children's affections.

The bill does not deal directly with parental alienation, but it does deal with one of the fundamental causes of those disputes, which is the coercive and controlling behaviour at its root. We have heard today that all parties are very interested in making sure that we also address the question of parental alienation.

Will the bill end domestic violence? Of course it will not. There are many other supports that the frontline women's shelter workers talked to us about. They include legal aid in family law at the provincial level and additional funding for shelters. During the pandemic, it became quite clear that many women do not have good options for leaving these relationships.

Even when women finally come to the conclusion that they have no other option but to leave, there is no place for them to go in the community. In particular, many women stay in relationships because they have children; they are not sure how they will provide shelter and food for those kids. Therefore, they suffer through that coercive and controlling behaviour in the interim.

Quite clearly, we need better education in the justice system on the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as domestic violence in general. Too often, stereotypes of survivors and relationships interfere with the proper operation of the justice system.

Many police forces have done good work in establishing domestic violence units. Not all police forces have those units. We need to make sure that police forces have people who are trained and have the sensitivities to recognize when there are harmful relationships in front of them. When the bill is in place, they would be able to use it to help people get assistance in those times.

We also know that prosecutors, quite often, do not proceed with cases because of a victim's reluctance to testify. We need some education there, both for the survivors and for the prosecutors, to make sure that these situations actually proceed in court, as they should. This is a way of sending a very strong social message that this behaviour is unacceptable and that those who engage in it will be sanctioned by society.

Finally, there is a difficult topic and one that I am always concerned about: We need to encourage judges to better educate themselves in this area. I respect the independence of judges, and I am not arguing here today that we make judges do something. What I am arguing is that we should get the attention of judges and have education provided to them, within their own professional organizations, on the topic of domestic violence and, in particular, coercive and controlling behaviour.

No, the bill would not stop domestic violence, but because of the close connection between coercive or controlling behaviour and femicide, it may play an important role in reducing femicides in this country. The bill would provide an important tool to catch harmful and dangerous situations in interpersonal relationships earlier than we do now. This is what I heard very strongly from the frontline shelters and from the police. Right now, we lack a tool that recognizes and allows action before there are bruises and broken bones.

I am pleased to see virtually universal support for the bill. I am pleased that we have a good prospect of getting it passed next week and getting it sent to the other place. I am hopeful that the amendments we made address the concerns of some of the Senators and allow them to act expeditiously as well.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code on controlling or coercive conduct. The bill would create a coercive control offence that seeks to protect victims of intimate partner violence and hold their abusers accountable. These are laudable and pressing objectives that I know we all support. I want to thank the member for Victoria for bringing the bill forward; I also want to note that it is important to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I thank him for his years of work on this issue and for the incredible speech he just delivered.

I am very pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights adopted the government's amendments to Bill C-332, which seek to further the critical objectives of the bill. These amendments were informed by provincial and territorial input; the fall 2023 stakeholder engagement process led by Justice Canada, in collaboration with provincial and territorial partners; the testimony of witnesses who bravely appeared to speak to Bill C-332 as introduced; Scotland's domestic abuse offence model, which was recommended by stakeholders who support enactment of a coercive control offence; and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to have to interrupt the hon. member. 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.

Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the third time we have seen the current bill or something similar before the House. The first time, the Liberals allowed it to die before the 2019 election. The second time, they killed it off themselves when they prorogued to hide one of their many ongoing scandals. We now have it back a third time.

How bad is the government? How incompetent is its scheduling that it has to invoke time allocation on a bill that has been before the House three times now?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Edmonton West's enthusiasm to pass the legislation. We certainly share his sense of urgency. It has been before the House three times. This feels like the right time. I am confident that the third time will be the lucky one.

It is too bad that we got to this point; as colleagues know, and my colleagues on the security committee know better than I do, the Conservatives have deployed a series of dilatory tactics to ensure that the legislation did not come out of committee. The Conservatives are even proposing frivolous amendments to delete the short title. Therefore, sadly, my colleague's enthusiasm to pass the bill seems a bit disconnected from some of his colleagues' actions to ensure that we had to bring in time allocation.

No government ever wants to have to bring in time allocation; I think all colleagues know that. Certainly, the Conservatives would not ever support time allocation. When they were in government, it was not a robotic, knee-jerk instinct that their government had; of course it was not.

Therefore, we are looking forward to hearing from colleagues. We think this is important legislation, and it is time for Parliament to proceed to vote on it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering why this is so urgent it requires closure. The bill was introduced on May 19, 2022. Second reading was completed on November 25, 2022. The committee report was completed on November 9, 2023, which was over six months ago.

If it takes the government six months to realize that it has to pass a bill, what does that say about its ability to plan?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I understand why my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou would ask that question.

When I look at the bill's timeline, I can see that it has been before Parliament for quite some time. That is probably one good reason to pass it speedily. The committee spent a significant number of meetings on this bill, during which our colleagues amended it.

Our government recognizes the importance of having a civilian authority mandated by law to oversee both the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP. We all know of situations where that kind of independent civilian oversight would have been desirable.

I think it is time for the House of Commons to vote on this bill, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP worked assiduously to improve this legislation, and we had to do it with the Conservatives blocking it at every single stage. What I found were delays at the committee level, when we tried repeatedly to have meetings to hear from witnesses, and each time it was blocked by the Conservatives. Despite that fact, because we are the worker bees in the House of Commons, the NDP worked to improve this bill, Bill C-20, which is a necessary bill. We had about a dozen improvements to the legislation, including banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims, ensuring there was no intimidation that could be imposed, ensuring union representation and increasing transparency. All those things improve the legislation and are needed.

Why have Conservatives blocked legislation like this, which is something that is needed and which all parties understand that it needs to be adopted through Parliament?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have had the chance to work with our colleague, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, over a number of years. He is an experienced, dedicated parliamentarian. I might have even given him the title of “worker bee” as well. He has been, and his colleagues in his caucus have been, extraordinarily constructive in committee in improving this legislation. We worked happily with our colleagues from the New Democratic Party. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby in particular brought a number of thoughtful amendments. He identified the improvements the committee made to this legislation. We were pleased that it was an example of a parliamentary process working well.

I share his concern. I am dumbfounded as well why the Conservatives would resist having independent, legislated, civilian oversight, for the first time ever, of the Canada Border Services Agency and having strengthened oversight of the RCMP. We thought parliamentarians would be in favour of this. Canadians are in favour of it. It is pretty disingenuous for Conservatives to bring amendments, for example, to delete the short title just to make sure the legislation does not come to a vote. That is what we are trying to fix this evening.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The minister speaks about the urgency with which we really need to pass this legislation, yet here we are. I was going to say it is déjà vu, but it really cannot be déjà vu because this is my first term. Those who have served three terms can actually say it is déjà vu. In fact, I am looking right now at the Library of Parliament summary that we have on this, and it is dated August 30, 2022. The government says that we need to move quickly and we have to truncate the rights of debate of members. How can the minister possibly square that with the fact that the Liberal government has been sitting on this legislation for the third time now and for about two years?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is in his first term in this Parliament, and he is correct that he would not have seen previous Parliaments that were not able to pass this legislation. However, we can conclude that this simple fact would behoove all of us to work collaboratively, as the committee did, and the support of the Conservatives at committee, for example, was important.

What we do not understand, and I think what other parliamentarians may not understand, is why the Conservatives are now seeking, through a series of frivolous amendments, to delete the short title. We think the idea of having an independent civilian oversight of national security agencies is important, which is something the Conservatives of course resisted when they were in government. Maybe it is an extension of their same hesitancy to set up a national security committee of parliamentarians to ensure that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency would have the substantive authorities that it has now. Finally, they are seeking to delay and to obstruct the idea of a civilian review commission to look at the Canada Border Services Agency, for the first time ever, and of course to look at the RCMP, which we think is a good idea. Canadians would expect us to work collaboratively on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his interest in border services.

However, it seems clear to me that the Canada Border Services Agency is experiencing a major governance problem. Therefore, in the context of today's debate, which is about implementing a new mechanism to address this governance problem, would it not have been a good idea to review the existing governance model and ensure that those responsible have the necessary skills to deal with the new complaint management mechanisms?

We know that ArriveCAN was a disaster. The handling of stolen vehicles at the port of Montreal also raises many concerns.

I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on the governance of the Canada Border Services Agency.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue raises an important issue, namely the internal governance of the Canada Border Services Agency.

The CBSA has gone through some difficult times, what with the Auditor General's report and the internal reviews of ArriveCAN.

I have a great deal of trust in the current president of the CBSA, Erin O'Gorman. I got to know her when she was a senior official at the Treasury Board. She has a lot of experience, specifically in matters of governance.

My discussions with her and the executive vice-president of the CBSA reassured me tremendously about their commitment to improving the governance of that organization. The idea of having a civilian-run independent commission to address this and deal with complaints is an important addition to the discussion.