44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 9, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the question my Liberal colleague asked my colleague from Victoria, I would like to say that several administrations around the world have indeed stated that this type of legislation can be complicated to enforce. That being said, at noon today, the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women welcomed a delegation from Europe which included people from France. I had some exchanges with some French government members, who said that despite the complexity, countries are moving forward when it comes to coercive control. We have to find a way to address this issue while trying to avoid the traps of the complexity of evidence. That is one of the barriers that remain to be crossed to truly address issues of domestic violence seriously.
It is critical to get to this because otherwise we are left with a single type of violence, the worst kind. There are many other types of violence that we must seriously include in the debate to be able to respond to the needs of as many victims as possible.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1794 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
285 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
