Bill C-332

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of exercising coercive control of an intimate partner by engaging in a pattern of conduct that consists of any combination, or any repeated instances, of any of the following acts: using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence against certain persons, coercing or attempting to coerce the intimate partner to engage in sexual activity or engaging in other conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe that their safety, or the safety of a person known to them, is threatened.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, we are very aware of Bill C-332. I thank the member for the fact that this bill was generated from his party, and also for the fact that there was a lot of collaborative work that was done to make strategic amendments to improve the content of that bill.

My understanding is that this bill is coming up for third reading, and we are very dedicated as a government and as a party to addressing issues of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. Coercive control is part of that continuum. The fact that other nation-states with which we are allies have addressed this issue already prompts us to act at a faster pace to try and ensure that this bill becomes law as soon as possible, at least through its passage through the House of Commons and off to the Senate.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, members from all sides of the House have supported the creation of a new offence in the Criminal Code for coercive and controlling behaviour. Bill C-332 is scheduled to return to the House for report stage and third reading next week.

Can the minister tell me when the government will act and implement the changes to the Criminal Code that are urgently needed to protect survivors, families and children who are at risk of coercive and controlling behaviour and escalating threats of harm and violence?

Is the government committed to fast-tracking the implementation of the legislation, given the all-party support?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I don't know if you had a chance to read the article by Stéphanie Grammond that appeared in La Presse this morning. You mentioned rising demand and the lack of resources needed to meet it. In her article, Ms. Grammond laments the fact that, since the start of this year, 14 femicides have been committed in Quebec, more than for all of 2023, and this is only the month of May.

Ms. Grammond has addressed the issue because various groups in Quebec are calling for a bill. However, right now at the federal level, Bill C-332, which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has considered, refers precisely to the criminalization of coercive control. Ms. Grammond emphasizes the following with regard to the bill: But there's no consensus on the issue. Some people argue that the definition of coercive control is vague and that certain acts that fall under that heading are already criminal, such as the act of intimidating people by stalking, threatening and depriving them of their keys and cell phones.

You mentioned in your presentation that some individuals use many tactics and various types of coercion. Do you think there are currently enough measures in the Criminal Code to punish someone who would stalk and threaten individuals and steal their keys and cell phones?

[Karine Barrette]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to your first comment: that it's not because there isn't always any violence that it's not dangerous. According to one U.S. statistic, in one third of domestic homicide or attempted domestic homicide cases, there was no history of physical violence.

So when you train police officers, you tell them they don't have to wait for physical violence or assault to occur for there to be a threat. That's a very important factor.

As regards Bill C-332, we're definitely in favour of it. We had a number of recommendations that we wanted to see incorporated in the first draft of the bill. We also had a chance to present those recommendations when we testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The final version of the bill incorporates most of our recommendations. One thing is certain: The bill and the criminalization of coercive behaviour won't be enough. We can't simply criminalize behaviour and hope to solve the problem as if by magic. Essential conditions must be laid down, as we mentioned in our opening remarks.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Riendeau and Ms. Barrette, continuing on from what you just said, it's not because there isn't always any violence that it doesn't always hurt, and it's not because the violence comes in the form of coercive control that it can't lead to femicide. I think that's the reason we're so interested in this issue. If you have any comments to make on what I just said, please feel free.

I'd also like to go back to an aspect that hasn't received a lot of attention today, and that is Bill C-332. You discussed it in your preliminary remarks, and you said you were in favour of it.

I recently attended a conference on violence against women. It was held in my region, and the groups in attendance were really interested in the bill. However, some changes should be made to it because, as it's been drafted, it couldn't be used to solve all problems, even those involving coercive control. Do you have any proposals to offer us concerning the bill?

[Louise Riendeau]

Coercive behaviour isn't a new form of domestic violence or a synonym for psychological violence. Instead it's a term that reflects a broader vision of domestic violence. The main reason why women seek assistance at our shelters isn't physical violence, but rather other forms of violence. More than 44% of the women who receive outpatient services do so as a result of violence following a separation.

With funding from Women and Gender Equality Canada, we are conducting a project to encourage the various legal actors to incorporate the concept of coercive control in their practices. Now more than two years since it started, the project has had a major impact. First, we've created a tool box for legal actors and a booklet for the women themselves.

In addition, more than 6,000 professionals have received training to assist them in more effectively detecting coercive control. As a result, coercive control strategies are beginning to feature in police reports. We have also noticed that legal actors have acquired a clearer understanding of the risk associated with coercive control, particularly in preventing homicides.

Furthermore, Quebec's Ministry of Public Security has expanded the victim statement to include coercive control elements and has broadcast a webinar intended for all police officers in the province. It has also developed a “police placement”, a kind of checklist to be used at all police stations.

In addition, the director of criminal and penal prosecutions now requests that prosecutors take coercive control into account in the violent cases they handle.

Lastly, we are now witnessing a change in the way domestic violence is presented and discussed in the media.

These changes lead us to believe that the legal community is now focusing more clearly on coercive control. The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale advocates for the criminalization of coercive control. It supports Bill C-332, as it was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In our view, criminalization would help validate the experience of the victims and their children and demonstrate that this behaviour is socially unacceptable. This would represent a significant step toward securing women's rights to safety, dignity, autonomy and freedom.

This new offence would also help provide legal professionals with additional tools to break the cycle of violence at an earlier stage and to intervene appropriately given the dangerous nature of this type of violence.

[Professor Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to engage in your committee study of coercive control.

I'm joining you today from Treaty 7 territory in Mohkinstsis, which is the Blackfoot word for Calgary.

I'm speaking today on my own behalf, but I did file a submission with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its study of Bill C-332 with three co-authors in March 2024. Our submission raised concerns with the criminalization of coercive control. I will not repeat those concerns in these opening remarks but certainly will welcome questions on that subject.

In my time today, I'll focus on research that I've conducted with colleagues Janet Mosher and Wanda Wiegers that examines how coercive control is being interpreted and applied under the Divorce Act. This research reveals several concerns, two of which I'll highlight today.

First, coercive control is being used against survivors. We found several cases where coercive control has been interpreted broadly by family courts—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have less than 25 seconds of speaking time left, so I'm hoping someone can answer my question in 10 or 15 seconds: How can we address this issue? Some people, including Ms. Gill, have talked about Bill C‑332. What could be complementary to our study and this bill?

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

There is a bill. It's Bill C-332, which is an act to amend the Criminal code. One part of it references coercive conduct as "including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities."

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies, thank you for taking the time to enlighten us on the subject of coercive behaviour.

Ms. Gill, since we began the study, everyone has told us about the difficulty regarding the burden of proof, which rests on the shoulders of the victim. It's extremely difficult, because it's hard enough to identify these behaviours upstream and to prove them in a court of law. The very fact of reporting it to the police is already a challenge, and submitting the evidence in the judicial process is another.

To your knowledge and from all your research, will criminalizing coercive control really make things easier? We currently have Bill C‑332 on the table, which is very interesting. Will its adoption make it easier for women to denounce behaviour, to be believed by the police, to win their cases and to convince a judge that they have been victims of coercive behaviour?

[Professor Carmen Gill, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to present in this meeting on coercive behaviour.

My research focuses on the police response to intimate partner violence, IPV, especially coercive control. As such, I conducted a survey with police officers on their perception of IPV involving coercive control. IPV is multi-dimensional in nature and encompasses numerous forms of violence. It is often seen as an episodic and a one-term event, failing to address the complexity of an issue involving repetitive tactics used by abusers.

Violent behaviour does not necessarily involve physical violence or a single incident, but instead consists of a repeated and continuous pattern of behaviour that occurs over lengthy periods of time. Regardless of the violence, when the violence starts, whatever it looks like, it is the abuser's way of maintaining control over his partner.

Since the criminal justice system primarily places emphasis on the evidence of physical violence, first responders are to find evidence of such violence. Consequently, there is neglect in questioning the context of the abuse and the harm caused within the situation, which results in coercive control being unaddressed or dismissed. It is almost impossible for police officers to recognize a deprivation of rights to freedom, the obstruction to liberty and the control situation.

The recognition of coercive control as an offence would finally be a recognition that power and control over an intimate partner is a crime against the person. This would allow those caught in an abusive relationship to report when they are experiencing abuse, even if it's not physical violence.

Police officers must assess whether a situation is considered as IPV and potentially criminal. At the same time, we're asking them to recognize the signs of coercive control. Their assessment is twofold. On one hand, police officers are to determine if it is an isolated incident that is situational and caused by tension that led to a conflict escalation. On the other hand, they must assess if the situation involves a controlling pattern from the abuser, which would not be an isolated incident.

Coercive controlling behaviour is not always visible to outsiders and demands a deeper interaction with the survivor to determine the pattern in place. These patterns are built up over time and characterized by a combination of different tactics to control the intimate partner. It encompasses three pillars under which various behaviour can be identified. The first is the denying of resources or rights. The second is surveillance and micro-regulation. Finally, it is the manifestation of violence.

Coercive control blends into intimate relationships and is normalized in our society. It appears so normal that even survivors may consider that they are not abused because they were not physically assaulted. Identifying coercive controlling behaviour is like putting together a puzzle. It makes sense once the pieces of the puzzle relate to one another. Every professional working with survivors is in the delicate position of going beyond what they see on scene or what they consider what is IPV to ensure that they have a broad understanding of the context of the situation.

I think the revised Bill C-332 illustrates some of these tactics that can allow identification of such behaviour. How do you read a situation without visible physical violence? To optimize their response, police officers need to have a clear understanding of those behaviours and what they look like. They need to gather evidence that would not be looked for, and it starts by allowing identification of coercive control behaviour.

We have to remind ourselves that an enactment of coercive control offence will only be successful with support and adequate training of those who are going to implement it.

Thank you.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I think I misunderstood what you meant when you talked about France as an exception. I thought that France already had that as an exception. Thank you for clarifying.

I recently attended a conference on violence against women. It was put on by women's groups in my region, and obviously, the important issue of coercive control was discussed. Violence doesn't always take the form of bruises on a person's arm. It is actually much more than that. I remember hearing as a teenager a slogan to raise awareness among Quebeckers about violence against women. It stuck with me: Violence doesn't always involve hitting, but it always hurts.

Right now, we have a bill that addresses coercive control, Bill C-332. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied the legislation.

I want to go back to that study. I'm not sure whether you've had an opportunity to examine Bill C‑332 and form an opinion.

Ms. Silverstone and Ms. McManus, would you care to comment on the legislation Canada is currently studying?

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, controlling or coercive conduct.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

No, I won't.

I want to thank the minister for his very clear presentation on Bill C-63.

I want to add two things to this discussion. One is that the loudest voices on this bill often do not include those who are most likely to be subjected to hate crime campaigns. When it comes before this committee, I'm looking forward to a diversity of witnesses who can talk about the real-world impacts that online hate has. We've seen it again and again. It's often well organized.

I stood outside the House of Commons and defended the rights of trans kids. Within one day, I had 700 emails with the same defamatory and hateful two-word phrase used to describe me. I am a privileged person. I have a staff. I have all the resources and support I need. However, when you think about what happens to trans kids and their families when they are subjected to these online hate crimes, it has very real consequences.

I'm looking forward to us being able to hear from diverse voices and, in particular, those who are most impacted. I know this is not really a question to you at this point.

We have other important work we've been doing in this committee. I want to turn to Bill C-332, which just passed this committee and was sent back to the House. This is the bill on controlling and coercive behaviour. This committee has been dealing with this topic for more than three years. One of the things that we quite clearly said was that the passage of this bill is a tool for dealing with the epidemic of intimate partner violence, but it's not the only tool.

I guess I'm asking two things here.

What other plans does the Department of Justice have to provide the necessary and associated supports for survivors of intimate partner violence?

What plans are there to do the educational work that will be necessary?

The bill says it will be proclaimed at a time chosen by cabinet. I'm assuming there will be a plan to get ready for this. I'm interested in what's going to happen with that plan. It has unanimous support, so I don't think it's premature to be asking about this at this point.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for that.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves—and I'm glad Mr. Fortin raised this particular one—is this: Should we as a committee, based on just this meeting today—not based on Bill C-332 and not based any of the witnesses who appeared before us at committee—make the conscious decision that in Canada, from now on, if you threaten multiple times to kill yourself, that's a criminal offence? That's what we're doing here.

It could be that we'd hear enough testimony from different groups that would lead us to the conclusion that, yes, there is a way this could be incorporated. The problem is that we around this table have not heard that. I do think, by a plain reading of this legislation, that this part and some of the others are quite troubling. Again, this is not a reflection on our witnesses. It's more directed to the government. The whole approach of introducing a bill that we haven't had....

I heard what Mr. Garrison said. Yes, we heard general testimony about Bill C-332, but we have not had the chance to ask anyone about any of these specific provisions. For example, I would like to have witnesses here to ask them about each one of the itemized new non-criminal offences that through this bill would now become criminal.

I'm just raising that last point to reiterate that, at this point, unless there are people here who will enlighten us through more testimony on each one of these provisions, I will have to vote against G-2 and support the language we've already considered and already had witness testimony on, which is in proposed subsection 264.01(1) of Bill C-332. I did not hear witnesses say that we had that wrong and that this bill won't be helpful. We heard some testimony that said there are models that itemize some things, but threatening to die by suicide was never suggested at this committee. Words matter. By the testimony of our witnesses here today, this is criminalizing non-criminal behaviour in the context of coercive control. Obviously, we have to be very careful about what gets added to that list.

This is just one thing that's been flagged. I don't see how we could be ready to proceed with G-2 on that basis alone.