SoVote

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/4/24 5:21:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour, obviously, to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Shephard. I know that the residents have seen it fit to send me back here to speak on their behalf. One of the issues that I often get emails and phone calls about is the daily cost of living. Whether it is constituents' cellphone bill, rent, mortgages or prices at the grocery stores and elsewhere, the cost of goods and services is going up, and everybody sees it all around them. A lot of that is related to decisions that were made during the pandemic. The government massively increased the monetary supply and more than doubled the national debt at the time. We know from the Auditor General and the PBO that only about $205 billion of the $600 billion in spending had nothing to do with the pandemic. There is a lot of spending there. On this opposition day that has been put forward by the NDP, I heard one member on the other side whom I want to correct. The member for Edmonton Griesbach was talking about three apples for $7. My favourite store in Calgary is the Calgary Co-op. It is a co-op with 400,000 members, and I am a member. There is no way; one would have to buy a lot of apples. I highly recommend that the member drive down from Edmonton, go to the co-op in Calgary and purchase my favourite, which is Granny Smith apples, for $1.32 for every single apple. If he buys more, he gets a discount. It is highly recommended that he do so. Again, someone can pick and choose which grocery stores they want to go to. There is choice out there. One thing I will mention is that the federal government is making it making it more expensive to shop at Calgary Co-op because the government has banned the store's fully compostable green bags, which have no plastic in them whatsoever, from being used, despite the fact that the City of Calgary worked with Calgary Co-op to create a bag that was fully compostable in the city's composting system. Even the ink does not have any plastic in it. It is not artificial. It is a completely recyclable bag. I have tabled petitions on behalf of the residents in my riding. I have spoken up on it. I have sent the minister letters on this fact, pointing out to him that the City of Calgary is one of the first movers on compostable bags in its jurisdiction, trying to address the issue of single-use plastic bags. I will say that I prefer the compostable bags. There are many residents who have emailed me, many more than I ever thought would. There is now the ridiculous situation where one has to buy the bags in a roll. The clerks are not allowed to give them out. People have to buy them from a bin right before the cash and then have their groceries bagged. They are much more expensive than they were before, and that adds to the cost of buying groceries unless one remembers to bring cloth bags or one's own other bags. Many of us forget to do so. When someone has kids and the kids are hassling them, it is very difficult to do. That is just one very small example of what happens as the cost of daily living increases. Some of the examples that they have here include the government's ordering companies to reduce prices, as if that would work, when the government is pushing up prices because the supply chains are stressed and because the monetary supply has been vastly increased. There are more dollars chasing fewer goods and services. It is as true today as it has been for decades before. I especially find it concerning that the government would introduce price caps here. Price controls have never worked in any jurisdiction. It has been attempted. It leads to rationing by suppliers and by producers, because if someone cannot get the price that it costs to make the product and to ship it, so that it can be on our store shelves, that makes them not do it. Therefore we run short of goods. This was true in western Germany. It was true well after the war. It is true in many jurisdictions for different types of goods and services when the government puts a cap on prices. It was tried in Canada in the 1970s. Famously, it was tried in the United Kingdom by a Labour government, and it led to shortages of goods and services. In the United Kingdom, the national Labour government was actually setting tax rates. The national government of the U.K., in the 1970s, set tax rates. It is reported in one of Lady Thatcher's biographies in which she wrote about her time in government. I would think on (b) in the motion, with respect to the delays in long-needed reforms to the nutrition north program. I think many of us would actually agree that reforms are needed to the program. I do not think anybody disagrees. We have had some of the prices quoted back to us as to what it costs to live in the north. I think that for me and other members who have come to be educated thanks to others who have done the research and who have put forward the numbers, this is something we would generally agree with. However, it then goes on to say, “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.” I wonder when the NDP leader is going to talk about his brother, who lobbies for Metro. I wonder when we will have a conversation about all the big, major corporations that are so busy lobbying ministers. Some of these ministers were lobbyists before they became ministers and are now buddies with the people they were lobbying. I would like to hear more about that. In Alberta, one of the major costs and cost drivers for suppliers of produce and grocery goods on the store shelves is the carbon tax. Before the rebate, the average family in Alberta will pay $2,943. Every Alberta family will be worse off in just a few years if they are not worse off right now, on average. Consistently, many constituents are sending me their Enmax bills and Hydro One bills, which show that they are paying a lot of money, sometimes more than they use in natural gas, just on the carbon tax. I have a great love for Yiddish proverbs, and I know there are those who appreciate it when I use them. A fool says what he knows, and a wise man knows what he says. Now I can transition to what I think is the greatest foolishness: budget 2024. The $61 billion of new spending in it will only drive up the cost of our goods and services even further. This is $61 billion of new government spending that the coalition has decided to support, further driving up the prices of goods and services in Canada. It is not just me saying this. RBC says it. CIBC says it. TD says it. The big banks are reporting it. Economists are saying it. Analysts are saying consistently that if we drive up public spending and drive up public borrowing, we will crowd out private spending and private borrowing because they become more expensive and there are fewer goods to go around. In fact, RBC's budget analysis headline for federal budget 2024 was “Lack of spending restraint offset by revenue surprise and tax hikes”. This is the last thing I want to raise. We often say in this place, and I hear rhetoric from the NDP side on it, that companies are being greedy and that usually it is just profit-making. Companies are trying to earn a profit, whether it is a family company or a company that has shareholders. What about government greed? What about the government incessantly raising taxes on everyone in this country and then expecting to get as much of that revenue into its pockets as possible so it can have a Liberal green slush fund? The Liberals are so embarrassed by it that now they are going to shut it down. What about government greed and the incessant voracious appetite for tax dollars so they can be misspent, thrown away and corruptly given to consultants? This is something I do not hear the New Democrats and Liberal MPs talk about enough. We have endless examples of corruption in different government bureaucracies. The latest is the SDTC's green slush fund, which the government has admitted to and is shutting down. The government is abandoning it and trying to run away from its own board members, whom it appointed. They corruptly gave money to the corporations they ran. However, that money came from taxpayers in each of our ridings, who paid more at the end of the day. Families in my riding, as I said, pay $2,943 more in carbon tax. That does not just raise the price of groceries. It is on their utility bills and it is for the staycation they want to take. It is in all the goods they are buying for their homes. All of those costs are incurred as part of it. There are shipping costs too. There are no farms in my riding. The closest connection we have to farms in my riding is the grocery stores, and it is the same thing for seafood. That is the closest connection we have to the food chain, and when we go to grocery stores, we see prices being inflated because the shipping costs have gone up so high.

1651 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:30:05 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

83 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/4/24 5:30:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division because all Canadians deserve to know which members of Parliament are fighting for lower grocery prices and which ones are not.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:31:09 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-252

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:07 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/4/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

9 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:54 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:33:21 p.m.
Watch

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

11 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/4/24 5:33:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

She said: 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.

1804 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 5:47:05 p.m.
Watch

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.

68 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:47:34 p.m.
Watch

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.

151 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Jun/4/24 5:48:37 p.m.
Watch

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?

63 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:49:00 p.m.
Watch

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.

117 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/4/24 5:50:01 p.m.
Watch

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?

133 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:50:48 p.m.
Watch

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.

125 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 5:51:41 p.m.
Watch

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.

1128 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Jun/4/24 6:01:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

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.

1526 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324