SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Jun/11/24 5:12:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

Mr. Speaker, my question is not about the substance of Bill C‑40, but about the time allocation motion. There are times when the Liberals filibuster, for example at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. They have done that at several meetings now because they refuse to accept the majority decision at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. In this case, they are tabling a time allocation motion for much the same reason. When the Liberals do it, it is good, but when another party does it, it is bad. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

100 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 5:13:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that time allocation is useful if it is used when necessary. In this case, it is necessary. We saw how the Conservatives behaved when the bill was being studied at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They filibustered for more than 30 hours. In the House, they decided to propose report stage amendments that would completely gut the bill. It is abundantly clear to all Canadians watching that the Conservatives' currently have zero interest, whether in committee or in the House, in reversing miscarriages of justice. They may well say that they are looking for another way of going about it. The fact is that the current method is not working. We are not succeeding right now because we are not finding the cases. There are certainly more cases out there. This commission would give us the tools for doing so. That is why we are importantly promoting the establishment of a commission, because it can make change and have an impact on real people's lives, including the victims that the member for Fundy Royal likes to speak about. He conveniently omits victims of wrongful convictions, which is quite selective, from my perspective, and certainly irrational and intellectually hypocritical.

206 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jun/11/24 5:14:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in our independent institutions, especially when it comes to our justice system. I know oftentimes people in this chamber like to pretend they are judge and jury, but I know there are people without partisan stripes who are able to do that work, and that is why that confidence remains. I also know that our justice system is not perfect and, though mistakes are rare, what we are noticing is that there are mistakes made and they should be corrected in an efficient manner. I have heard from constituents as well that wrongful convictions have a devastating impact on a wrongfully convicted person, but also on the victims who deserve truth and justice. We are going to have to go through report stage because members of the Conservative Party of Canada decided, at report stage, to amend the legislation so that nothing would exist in it, meaning once again they do not want to address the concerns that exist. The minister spoke about systemic racism and discrimination that we know exists within our country. I would like to hear from the minister what measures have been put in place, so that when this commission and the steps are established, we do it in a way that we learn from the past and that the very people who we are trying to serve are served.

231 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 5:15:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the statistics, they have been mentioned in the discussion about mandatory minimum penalties. An indigenous adult in this country is six times more likely to be incarcerated than that percentage of the population. For an indigenous youth, it is eightfold. For a Black person in this country, it is threefold. Every single one of those demographics is overrepresented in our system. What are we doing in this very bill? We would ensure we have a commission, first of all. That commission would be made up of between five and nine individuals and the legislation specifically says that those members would reflect the diversity of Canadian society and would take into account the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including indigenous people and Black people. That is entrenched in the legislation as a specific mandate for this commission in terms of its composition and the types of cases it would seek out. That is how to address systemic overrepresentation and racism. It would be wonderful if the party opposite, His Majesty's official opposition, could both utter those phrases and actually tackle the issue.

191 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/11/24 5:16:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the Minister of Justice speak highly of the U.K. experience. A representative from the United Kingdom commission told us about the threshold language that it uses, that there is a real possibility a miscarriage of justice occurred, which is much higher than the wording that is being proposed in Bill C-40. The witness also told us about a large body of jurisprudence that supported that language. I read a lot of those cases and I agree that the United Kingdom got it right. Why does the Minister of Justice not agree with that and adopt the United Kingdom's language, something that Conservatives could support?

114 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/11/24 5:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if the member supports the U.K. commission model, then he should get behind this bill. We are moving away from a model that arrives on my desk to a model that has a commission, which is the first point. The second point is that we are informed by the study that was done by former Justice LaForme and former dean of law, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré. It is important in terms of putting a Canadian lens on the pernicious issue, and the very Canadian issue, of overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our justice system. That is a unique Canadian response to a unique Canadian problem. We have looked at the U.K. model, and we are perfecting the U.K. model through this very bill.

134 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/11/24 5:18:06 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. 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.

74 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/11/24 5:19:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are comfortable passing it on division.

9 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/11/24 5:19:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

7 words

Recorded

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/11/24 5:19:39 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/11/24 6:02:45 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. And the Clerk having announced the results of the vote:

15 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

Jun/11/24 6:02:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to seek the support of the House. On the third reading of Bill C-20, I ran into difficulties with my phone app as I was walking to committee. I would like to seek unanimous consent to record my vote as yea.

51 words

C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/11/24 6:03:33 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

11 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Jun/11/24 6:04:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Madam Speaker, I rise to debate this bill today, and I would like to focus my comments on a specific aspect of coercive control, for which there remains very few easy-to-access and easy-to-deploy de-escalation tools for victims. It is my hope that parliamentarians in the other place will consider the addition of these components to this bill, particularly as it pertains to specific tools to assist law enforcement officials in stopping coercive control from happening. To set the context for this issue, I would like to refer to the Women's Legal Education & Access Fund, or LEAF. It developed a position paper on the criminalization of coercive control in response to this bill. In it, it defines “coercive control” as follows: Coercive control is a concept used to describe a pattern of abusive behaviors in intimate partner relationships, based on tactics of intimidation, subordination, and control. This can include, among others, behaviors such as isolation, stalking, threats, surveillance, psychological abuse, online harassment, and sexual violence. Other sources discussed threats of extortion, including so-called revenge porn, as one of the abusive behaviours also used to exert coercive control. In its paper, LEAF raises the concern that the process of criminalizing coercive control may encounter significant challenges to legal success and that it may be “difficult to translate clearly into actionable criminal law.” One of the recommendations it makes to at least partially address this issue reads as follows: “Federal, provincial and territorial governments should take a proactive approach in focusing on the prevention of intimate partner violence.” I would like to focus on two actionable, concrete ways to prevent two specific behaviours or components of coercive control: online harassment and revenge porn. In nearly nine years of power, the Liberal government has not taken material action to address the growing threat and breadth of online harassment, particularly as it relates to coercive control. The government's recently introduced and widely criticized Bill C-63, which many experts say would force Canadians to make trade-offs between their charter rights and their safety, does not adequately address the issue of women who are subject to a pattern of abusive behaviour online. Even if it did, today the minister admitted in the Toronto Star that the bill's provisions, which rely on the creation of an onerous new three-headed bureaucracy, would take years to functionally come into force. Canadian women do not have time to wait for the minister's foot-dragging. Online harassment has been an issue for years, and the government has not ensured that our laws have kept pace with this issue. For evidence of this, I encourage colleagues to read the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime's guide to cyberstalking, which admits as much, saying that, when victims seek to report incidents of cyberstalking, “individual officers may be unfamiliar with the crimes or technology in question and may be uncertain about how to proceed.” Indeed, last month, an article was released that was headlined, “RCMP boss calls for new politician anti-threats law”. It cited the need for more provision to protect politicians from online harassment. I asked myself, if the RCMP cannot protect me, how are they going to protect anyone in my community from the same threat? We should all reflect upon this issue because across Canada, at this very moment, women are receiving repeated, unwanted, harassing digital communications, and the best that many victim services groups can do to help, because of government inaction, is offer advice on how they can attempt to be less of a victim. Women should not have to alter their behaviour. Potential harassers should be held to account, and their behaviour should be de-escalated before it escalates into physical violence. To do this, I encourage parliamentarians in the other place to consider the following in their review of this bill. They should ask the government to create a new criminal offence of online harassment that would update the existing crime of criminal harassment to address the ease and anonymity of online criminal harassment, which groups, in the deliberation of this bill, have noted as a component of coercive control. Specifically, this new provision would apply to those who repeatedly send threatening or sexually explicit messages or content to people across the Internet and social media when they know, or should know, that it is not welcome. This could include aggravating factors for repeatedly sending such material anonymously and be accompanied by a so-called digital restraining order, which would allow victims of online criminal harassment to apply to a judge to identify the harasser and end the harassment. This would give police and victims clear and easy-to-understand tools to prevent online harassment and also prevent the escalation of this abuse to physical violence. It would also allow for national awareness and education campaigns to be developed on what happens when someone criminally harasses somebody online. This would address a major issue of intimate partner violence and make it easier to materially and concretely stop coercive control. Members of the governing Liberal Party agreed to the need for these measures in a recent meeting of PROC related to the online harassment of elected officials. In addition, the government must do more to address so-called revenge porn as a component of coercive control. An academic article entitled “Image-Based Sexual Abuse as a Means of Coercive Control: Victim-Survivor Experiences” states: Victim-support advocates and domestic violence sector workers have increasingly acknowledged the role that image-based sexual abuse plays in the perpetuation of intimate partner abuse.... Image-based sexual abuse refers to the non-consensual taking or sharing of nude or sexual images (photos or videos), including making threats to share intimate images.... In the context of an intimate relationship, image-based sexual abuse can include any of the following acts: taking or sharing nude or sexual images without consent; threats to share intimate images to coerce a partner into sharing more intimate images or engage them in an unwanted act; and/or recording and or disseminating of sexual assault imagery. However, colleagues, this has become even more of a concern given the advent of deepfake intimate images. I have been raising this issue in the House for over a year, and the government has still not moved to update the definition of “intimate images” in Canada's Criminal Code to specifically include deepfake intimate images. This component is not in Bill C-63. This inaction is already harming women. A Winnipeg high school student had deepfaked intimate images circulated against her; no charges were filed, likely because of the gap in our law. As it relates to coercive control, can members imagine how easy it would be for an abuser to create so-called revenge porn to use against their victim using online technology? The government must act now, but if it will not, we parliamentarians must. Therefore, I ask members of the other place to consider the following in the review of their bill. They should consider updating Canada's existing laws on the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to ensure that the distribution of intimate deepfakes is also criminalized via a simple definition update in the Criminal Code. This could be done easily and likely with all-party support in this place. It is shameful that the government has not moved to do that to date. In addition, the government admitted today in the Toronto Star that it is committed to dogmatically sticking with Bill C-63 as its only way to address online harms. This is despite widespread criticism and despite admitting that even the few supportable provisions in the bill would not come into force for years. Therefore, we in the opposition must look for ways to address these issues outside the government, particularly since online harm is a growing component of coercive control. In addition to what I have already suggested, as parliamentarians, we should address the broader issue of online harms by doing things such as precisely specifying the duty of care required by online platforms. This should be done through legislation and not backroom regulation. The duty of care could include mechanisms to provide parents with the safeguards, controls and transparency to prevent harm to their kids when they are online; mechanisms to prevent and mitigate self-harm, mental health disorders, addictive behaviour, bullying and harassment, sexual violence and exploitation, and the promotion and marketing of products or services that are unlawful for minors; and mechanisms to implement privacy-preserving and trustworthy age verification methods, which many platforms have already built, to restrict access to any content that is inappropriate for minors while prohibiting the use of a digital ID in any of these mechanisms. As well, we require mechanisms to give adults a clear and easy-to-use way to opt out of any default parental controls that a duty of care might provide for. Then, through legislation, we should ensure the appropriate enforcement of such measures through a system of administrative penalties and consequences by government agencies and bodies that already exist. In addition, the enforcement mechanisms could provide for the allowance of civil action when duties of care are violated in an injurious way. To address coercive control, we need to address online harassment. I hope that colleagues in the other place will consider the suggestions I have made to do just that.

1591 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Jun/11/24 6:14:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-332, which amends the Criminal Code to make controlling or coercive conduct an offence. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. This bill, which was introduced by the member for Victoria, is part of a growing trend among legislators working to address coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights produced a report on this issue, which was tabled in the House on April 27, 2021. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also examined this issue, as did the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as part of its study on safe sport. In sport, people in a position of authority can exercise coercive control over their athletes. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for sport. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard testimony from many athletes who shared how they were abused and mistreated. I commend them for their courage and I want to assure them that we will do everything we can to strengthen this legislation. This bill is not perfect and many shortcomings have already been identified. However, there is nothing preventing the federal government from making amendments to the laws governing sport or to any provisions of other justice and human rights legislation. I am going to talk about coercive control in sport. I will also address how this inappropriate practice can lead to abuse and mistreatment of athletes. This phenomenon is often hidden under the guise of discipline and performance requirements. It deserves special attention because it destroys not only careers, but lives. With the Paris Olympic Games just around the corner, I invite my esteemed colleagues to reflect on the importance of recognizing that there is another reality facing Olympic and Paralympic athletes. There is another side to the medal. Behind every dazzling victory and every gold medal, there are often enormous sacrifices, endless hours of training and sometimes silent suffering. The pursuit of sporting excellence can push some athletes to their extreme limits, and the pressure to succeed can be overwhelming. Under this facade of glory and success, the realities of overtraining, ignored injuries and unrealistic expectations can lead to situations of abuse and coercion. Acknowledging these darker aspects is essential to striking a balance between the pursuit of performance and the preservation of athletes' well-being, ensuring that sport remains a source of personal development, not distress. Coercion manifests itself in different ways in the world of sport. It can be physical, such as forcing someone to train beyond their pain threshold; psychological, through intimidation or threats; or emotional, through manipulation or constant put-downs. Unfortunately, these practices are often justified by the need to perform and reach goals. In addition, an imbalance of power can develop in coach-athlete relationships. Athletes are constantly in a situation of give and take and may not be capable of recognizing the intent behind each gesture in isolation. However, that vulnerability provides fertile ground for a predator to make the ultimate gesture by escalating to aggression. Respect may not always be present, it seems. For example, young athletes are often exposed to intense pressure from an early age. In many cases, they are pushed by coaches or even by their own parents to reach new heights without taking into account their physical and mental limits. This excessive pressure can lead to permanent physical trauma, as well as serious psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and even suicidal behaviour. Coercion, however, refers to the disconcerting behaviours and meaningless gestures that are subtly made when athletes come into contact with someone who has bad intentions. Right now, I am remembering the meeting where the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard poignant testimony from Justice Rosemarie Aquilina of the State of Michigan. Almost of us have heard about the gymnastics abuse scandals, the stories that made headlines and galvanized public opinion. Take the case of Larry Nassar, the former team doctor of the United States national gymnastics team, who sexually abused hundreds of young gymnasts under the guise of medical care. For years, these young girls were forced to remain silent, often out of fear of retaliation or shame, reinforced by a culture of coercion and blind obedience. Here in Canada, I am not sure if my colleagues have watched Rick Westhead's documentary, Broken: Inside the Toxic Culture in Canadian Gymnastics, where he covers the case of the infamous Brubakers, who did the same thing to Canadian gymnasts, and the silence and role of Gymnastics Canada in all this. I want to thank the team at Gymnasts for Change for taking a courageous stand, including Kim, Abby, Melanie, Emily, Jessica, Ryan and all the other warriors. I would also like to thank My Voice, My Choice; Can't Buy My Silence; Athletes Empowered and Global Athlete. They are heroes. Over the past few weeks, athletes have been sharing their stories on Jean-Luc Brassard's show, L'envers de la médaille. Athletes have also told their stories to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In addition, numerous cases have made headlines in Quebec and Canadian newspapers. These are cases of abuse that could have been prevented if athletes' signals had been interpreted correctly or if better laws had been in place, of course. I remember coming away from committee meetings shaken and stunned. These emblematic cases could have been prevented if proper safeguards had been in place and the victims had been taken seriously from the outset. How many investigations have been stonewalled by police investigators and by people within the sport federations themselves? Unfortunately, the culture of performance and the policy in sport of winning gold medals at all costs have often blinded those in charge. They have overlooked obvious warning signs. Each time, I ask myself why our society allows these things to happen. This bill makes perfect sense today because it represents a major step forward in sport as well. It is a first in a series of changes needed to better protect victims of coercion. In sport, these victims are unfortunately all too often underage children. I still believe that a public inquiry is needed, pursuant to part 1 of the Inquiries Act, to get to the bottom of the issue of maltreatment and abuse in sport. Public inquiries have always revealed systemic problems and proposed possible solutions. I have called upon the federal government, as well as the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity and her predecessor, to launch a public inquiry. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage just completed its report on safe sport, which will be tabled in the House very soon. I look forward to discussing it. Until then, I want to remind the House that the consequences of coercion and abuse in sport are deep and lasting. Physically, athletes can suffer irreversible injuries. Psychologically, they can develop post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders and addictions. The emotional impact can include loss of self-esteem, feelings of shame and relationship issues. The impact on an athlete's career in sport can be catastrophic. Many promising young talents are forced to leave their sport early after being abused. This not only deprives individuals of their passion and potential, it deprives sport more generally of its future champions. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C‑332's objective of better protecting victims of coercive or controlling violence. However, certain significant flaws require further consideration to guarantee that the bill is effective and fair. It is vital to expand the scope of the bill to allow former partners, family members, neighbours and colleagues to testify. This could help put an end to the system of “their word against mine”. What is more, the severity of the sentences needs to be assessed and the presence of children in situations of coercive violence should be considered an aggravating factor. It is also crucial to examine the impact of this new offence on family law and child protection, as well as the reasons prosecutors frequently drop certain charges to opt for lesser charges, undermining the administration of justice and public trust. The Criminal Code already has 35 sections that can be applied in domestic or spousal violence cases. It is imperative that they be strictly enforced and that we find ways to ensure that prosecutors use them more in cases of coercive or controlling violence. Finally, it is critical to overcome the difficulties related to the collection of evidence and the strength of the prosecution's case, while protecting the presumption of innocence. A debate needs to be held to balance out the duty to protect victims of controlling or coercive conduct and the right of the accused to a fair trial. By addressing these issues, we could enhance victim protection and make justice more effective and more fair for everyone, as well as ending the culture of silence, of course. We can take action now. This toxic culture has deep roots, which is why we need to act on several fronts. We can start by raising awareness and educating athletes on their rights from a very early age. Coaches and leaders must be trained to recognize and prevent coercive and abusive conduct. Sports organizations must implement strict policies against maltreatment and provide safe, confidential mechanisms for reporting abuse. Athletes must be encouraged to speak out without fear of retaliation and must be given the support they need when they do so. We need to end the culture of silence. That is important. It is essential. It is also vital that we get parents and families involved in this process, because they play a key role in protecting and supporting young athletes. Parents must be informed about the signs of coercion and abuse and know how to respond effectively to protect the children.

1674 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/11/24 6:24:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak on the issue of coercive control, something that I know jeopardizes the safety and well-being of countless women and gender-diverse people across Canada, an invisible violence that has been ignored for far too long. I really want to thank my colleague, the member for Victoria for tabling this important piece of legislation that seeks to alleviate the struggles of people who experience coercive control, the majority of whom are women and gender-diverse people. Coercive control includes different kinds of abusive behaviour like isolating individuals from family or friends, depriving them of basic needs, threatening to harm them or their children, and closely monitoring and and controlling their behaviour. It takes a significant toll on those who are victimized and deprives them of their charter right to be free from harassment and discrimination, and to live in dignity, which also includes violence against one's thoughts and spirit that impact their daily life and everything they do. I have often heard that when somebody is physically punched, we can see that abuse. With coercive control, it is difficult to see that abuse. The experience of people who have been victimized by coercive control has lasting impacts that are lifelong for many. It is critical that we address the issue of coercive control in light of the general rise of violence against women and gender-diverse folks across Canada, particularly targeted within rates of violence. We know that the highest rates reported are for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. Rates of domestic violence have increased by approximately 30% since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, while more than 50% of Canadian women over the age of 16 have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. Again, statistics are significantly higher for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. It is particularly alarming that we see intimate partner violence leading to a rise in femicide. According to Stats Canada, between 2009 and 2022, 18% of solved homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner, with women most often being the victims. Because of rising violence, over 70 municipalities have declared gender-based violence an epidemic, something that the Minister of Justice affirmed in a letter to the Ontario coroner's office. I urge the current government to stop talking about a crisis of violence and actually take action to finally address it. Although this bill is a positive step, there have been some concerns raised about the bill, which I know that the member for Victoria has committed to trying to rectify, particularly from the National Association of Women and the Law, which comprises over 250 women's organizations. Particularly because we must do whatever is needed to end the epidemic of violence, we must also take evidence-based approaches to ensure that policies we put forward work best for empowering those who are victimized. Sometimes we do things for positive reasons, but they can indirectly cause harm. It is for this reason that I would like to express some of the concerns surrounding the coercive control legislation voiced by women's organizations and experts at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, including the National Association of Women and the Law, which, as I said, represents over 250 feminist organizations across Canada. While we all are deeply concerned by the rise in gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, organizations like NAWL have expressed concerns with the legal consequences that can arise for victims and survivors when we criminalize abusive behaviour without addressing the broader context of sexism in the legal system, primarily impacting Black people, indigenous people and people of colour. According to experts, less than a quarter of women and gender-diverse people who experience violence and abuse have enough faith that their accusation will be taken seriously to report it to the police. Instead, their encounters with the legal system mostly occur in the realm of family law, where issues of parenting are adjudicated. In this context, abusers use judicial violence to perpetuate abuse post-separation. Central to this violence is the pseudo-scientific concept of parental alienation: Women who report family violence are systematically suspected of being alienating, that is, trying to manipulate their children and destroy the father-child relationship. This occurs even when there are criminal charges, investigations or convictions based on a father's violence or abuse. On the so-called “parental alienation” theory, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls stated the following: “the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe.” The concept of “parental alienation” serves as a tool to revictimize, discredit and silence victims of family violence, particularly mothers. When a mother makes an allegation of family violence or coercive control, she is suspected of trying to “alienate” her children. Accusations of parental alienation are primarily directed at women, especially victims of intimate partner violence. Legal experts tell us that a theory of parental alienation is used almost systematically when women report intimate partner violence, including coercive control, by abusers and their legal teams, yet judges and court officials across Canada usually believe these false accusations, or it is not uncommon for them to believe these false accusations, due to an inherent bias against believing women who report abuse. If we criminalize coercive control and tell victims to go and report violence without addressing the family law crisis, we might unknowingly be putting victims at risk. If mothers do report coercive control, they will be suspected of parental alienation and may risk losing their children. Some mothers are even advised by their own lawyers not to disclose domestic violence in family court due to the risk of being accused of parental alienation. Some women have said that if they had known in advance the consequences of parental alienation accusations, they never would have reported abuse or violence by an intimate partner. With this context in mind, we need a holistic approach to addressing coercive control, expanding beyond the realm of criminal law to encompass the nuances of family law. This includes, for example, prohibiting the pseudo-scientific concept of parental alienation in courts and ensuring that judges take seriously women's accusations of violence. Failure to do so risks leaving a large percentage of victims vulnerable to continued exploitation and manipulation. These factors are what we must consider when creating policies to address coercive control. It is absolutely imperative that solutions we propose to an issue as serious as this one do not contribute to the struggles of victims and further empower abusers. The bill proposed by the member for Victoria is a wonderful first step in the process of finally addressing coercive control. I look forward to working with her and other members in this House to also look at outside issues within family law, including parental alienation, to ensure that those fleeing violence are safe to do so without consequences.

1205 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/11/24 6:33:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code on coercive control of an intimate partner. The bill would strengthen Canada's legislative framework addressing intimate partner violence, creating a new offence aimed at better protecting victims of coercive control in intimate relationships. Coercive control involves ongoing conduct that deprives victims of their autonomy. It is a pernicious form of intimate partner violence and a significant risk factor for extreme violence. I have spoken with respect to this many times, not just in the House but also in committee. When I was part of the justice committee, we studied this very egregious behaviour, which is a predeterminer of intimate partner violence within communities and within homes. Before speaking specifically to Bill C-332, I want to thank the member for Victoria and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for their dedication to this cause. It is really important, and I appreciate their dedication. I am also grateful to all the individuals and organizations that provided evidence to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its study of this piece of legislation and its 2021 study on coercive control in intimate relationships more generally. That includes my own Chief Nishan of our Peel Regional Police. I appreciate all of their hard work on this. Gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence, is unacceptable and has no place in our country. Intimate partner violence is one of the most pervasive forms of violence against women. Our government is committed to ending the gender-based violence epidemic. Criminalizing coercive control is an important step to achieving this end; it is preventative, and it is very important in terms of how we work together in our communities. I am very pleased to see that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has passed the government's amendments to Bill C‑332, which were largely developed with the input of the provinces and territories, stakeholders and the experiences of other countries that have criminalized coercive control. The amended offence is now modelled on Scotland's domestic violence offence, which was strongly recommended by stakeholders who supported introducing such an offence. Specifically, the amended offence would criminalize engaging in a pattern of conduct with intent to cause the accused person's intimate partner to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened. It would also criminalize being reckless as to whether the pattern of conduct could have this effect. “Pattern of conduct” is defined broadly to include subtle forms of abuse that are not criminal in and of themselves; that is, it is conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that their physical or psychological safety is being threatened. The committee's amendments not only are responsive to stakeholder input but also further the bill's pressing objective of protecting victims in coercive control cases. For example, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to do the following. It would require courts to impose a weapons prohibition bail condition where an offender is charged with a coercive control offence, unless the justice considers that such a condition is not required in the interest of the safety of the accused or the safety and security of a victim of the offence or of any person, and to consider imposing additional conditions to ensure the safety and security of the victim where the offender is released on bail. It would also make the appointment of counsel for cross-examination mandatory on request by victims in coercive control cases where the accused person is unrepresented and seeks to cross-examine the victim themselves, unless the judge or justice is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires otherwise. It would also authorize the taking of DNA from those convicted or discharged of the bill's proposed coercive control offence, which would assist with the investigation and prosecution of intimate partner violence cases. It would also require courts to issue a weapons prohibition order where an offender is convicted or discharged of the coercive control offence. The amended bill also responds directly to several concerns raised by stakeholders, including by removing the requirement for proof that the victim was afraid. We have heard that requiring such evidence places a burden on the victim to testify, which is going to be a revictimization. It also requires them to show the effect of the accused's behaviour on them. We know in other areas of law, and now here, that another approach is possible, one that requires evidence showing that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would believe that their physical or psychological safety was threatened. This approach does not necessarily require a victim to testify and is familiar to Canadian courts. The bill would also remove the best interests defence, which was included in the bill as introduced. Significant concern was expressed that this defence could have resulted in excusing abusive conduct, in particular toward cognitively impaired and disabled individuals, based on the claim that the coercive conduct at issue was actually in their best interest. The bill would also delay the coming into force of the offence so that criminal justice practitioners could be trained on how to enforce it. Many stressed the importance of training prior to implementation, in particular because coercive control is an ongoing conduct offence, which is unusual in criminal law as the vast majority of criminal offences are incident-based. The bill underscores the message that all forms of intimate partner violence are serious, including the more subtler forms, which have so often gone unrecognized. Supporting Bill C-332 is one of many concerted efforts that the government has taken to end gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence and to support victims of both. For example, in 2021, the Government of Canada announced over $600 million in funding over five years to address gender-based violence in Canada. Of this, Justice Canada was allocated $48.75 million to ensure access to free legal advice and legal representation for survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence. In 2022, the government allocated funding of $539.3 million over five years to enable provinces and territories to enhance services and supports within their jurisdictions to prevent gender-based violence and support survivors through the national action plan to end gender-based violence. I am pleased to have learned that bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and all 13 provinces have been finalized. I realize I am coming to the end of my time, but I am looking forward to working with all parties in this House to ensure that we are eradicating and actively preventing gender-based violence from occurring in all communities, including mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills.

1141 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/11/24 6:44:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be standing in the House today to talk about Bill C-332. It is such an important bill because it talks about amending the Criminal Code around controlling and coercive conduct. I want to thank the member for Victoria for bringing this forward into the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who brought forward a bill in the 43rd Parliament that is very much the same. This is an important bill because, when we look at any kind of intimate partner violence or gender-based violence, we need to make the world safer by saying that this is real and that it happens. One of the most concerning issues of our time has been an increase in domestic violence. Especially, during the pandemic, it rose in Canada by 50%. When people were in their homes trying to stay safe, all too often, they became far less safe. One challenge, of course, in addressing these issues is that there is nothing in place at this time about criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour. This matters a lot. So often, it happens in little ways. There are these kinds of behaviours where a person is having a relationship or has a connection with someone and see little things that are done all the time. These things minimize a person's reality and control them so that they cannot have the freedom that they should have. It takes away a little part of the self. I remember working with people who had gone through some sort of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. One thing they were clear about with me was that it was all these little things that kept happening. In the beginning, it just seemed as though, if a person just gave up a little piece of themselves, it would bring peace into the relationship. They thought everything would then be okay. Even if they felt uncomfortable with it, there was nowhere to go to say that the person they were with was now taking away all of their credit cards, would not let them have access to their own bank account or was telling them that they had to leave and come back at certain times. Even when they reported it, nothing could be done. There was no recognition of that behaviour, something that was actually leading to a very dangerous place. That is why I am so supportive of the bill: It is important that we start telling people that this is inappropriate behaviour. Before I took on my role as a politician, in my job as the executive director of the Immigrant Welcome Centre of North Vancouver Island, I remember working with a lot of newcomer women who had come to Canada through different avenues. They had been sponsored by a spouse or had come over as a caregiver. It was shocking how often that was taken advantage of. I remember one woman, in particular, who came into our office quite agitated and angry with Canadians. When we sat her down to talk about it, she told us the story of meeting a Canadian man in her home country. They fell in love, she married him, and she was then sponsored to come back to Canada to live with him. When she arrived in Canada, things slowly started to change with her husband; he was very clear that, in Canada, women did not have the same rights as men. Of course, we know that is not the case, but if one is a newcomer woman, one may not know this. She was very angry because, after she came to Canada, he had done things such as change the locks on the doors. He actually made it so that, when the doors closed in the house, they locked automatically. He did not give her a key. If she got caught outside, he would be very angry with her. We had to work really hard to get this woman into a safe place. When I look at this here, I can see very clearly that, if it had been criminalized in this place, we would have been able to move a lot faster with her. I hope that, as we do this, we remember the important part of teaching women and people who are in vulnerable groups that this is not okay behaviour. It is those small things. I have talked to so many people who have survived this behaviour. It teaches them not to trust themselves because their reality is rejected by the person they have this relationship with. When a person cannot trust themselves, it really leads to paths where they do not take care of themselves in the way that they should because they feel like they have done something wrong, and that is the most despicable part of this behaviour, as far as I am concerned. When we take away a human being's ability to trust themselves and to know what does and does not feel good for themselves, it is a terrible form of abuse that is often minimized. It often leads to violence, as those people do not have the ability to defend themselves because they have been picked at for so long that they no longer understand their own human rights. I am glad to have this bill put forward. We have to remember that this kind of behaviour is consistent with early warning signs of femicides, and we need to stop that. It is not only about the physical violence, although that is so important, but also about these small behaviours and these warning signs of aggressive behaviour and toxic relationships, which include coercive and controlling behaviour. In my riding, there are many spaces to help people flee violence, and I want to acknowledge all of them; they do incredible work. One that has always stayed close to my heart is the work done in Campbell River at the transition home. It has the beautiful history of Ann Elmore Haig-Brown. She was a woman who worked very hard in that area of Campbell River to make sure that women, largely, were protected. Even though she did not have an official safe house, she created one in her own home. She made sure that women and children fleeing abusive relationships were protected. She often kept them in her own home or in the cottages around her home. She was very quiet and discreet, and she never shared anyone's reality, but she kept them safe. I think that kind of work is so important. She started a pathway towards Campbell River being able to move forward to have its own transition home and to move on to the other services provided by the Ann Elmore transition house in Campbell River. When we look at the history of domestic abuse and of intimate-partner violence, we can see this path that has always been there. Women and children were fleeing violence and were not able to come forward to talk about inappropriate behaviour that is controlling. Because there was nothing there, the gaps just became wider. The other important thing is that it creates less trust in people who provide the supports, such as police or RCMP, for example. If a person cannot come in and get the help they need right away, it means they do not have trust in those systems, which makes it harder to ask for help later. Adding this is really going to allow police and RCMP to be able to take action much sooner than they are able to today. A big part of this should also include making sure that they get the training to understand what this behaviour looks like and how to call it into reality. I want to mention that this bill also includes a provision that would allow victims of coercive and controlling behaviour to be recognized by the legislation, even after the relationship has ended. This is really important because for so many people who go through this experience and who are able to get away, for one reason or another, when they look back at it, they can see the pattern that started so much earlier. It is important that this is there because it would allow people to really call on that. In our society, we have to make sure that people are held to account for the actions that they take, so this is important. It means that people are not silenced and that when they are ready to come forward and speak, this would be there for them. I want to thank everybody who works so hard to keep people safe. I think it is about time that we take that step forward to make sure that we are even safer and that the legislation is there to take action sooner.

1495 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/11/24 6:53:56 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria has five minutes for right of reply.

14 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/11/24 6:54:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking all of my colleagues who have been advocates on the issue, who have listened to survivors and their families and who are committed to ending gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. Over the past year, working on the bill, I have heard hundreds of stories from Canadians across the country about how coercive control has impacted their lives. Coercive control is a pattern of behaviour intended to isolate, manipulate, control and often terrorize one's partner, stripping away their autonomy and their self-worth. It is an insidious form of violence that often goes unnoticed and not talked about, until it escalates. Then it becomes something much more visible and much more tragic. It is one of the most common precursors to physical violence. Coercive control is so widespread, and there are so many stories. Today I want to talk a little bit about a few people who have travelled from Sault Ste. Marie. They are here in Ottawa tonight for the debate and for tomorrow's vote. Angie's Angels is a group that was formed a week after the murder of Angie Sweeney. Angie was a vibrant, loving person whose life was brutally cut short by femicide at the hands of her ex-boyfriend. Angie's ex-boyfriend used controlling tactics throughout their relationship, and when she left, the situation escalated violently. Her tragic story is all too common, and it is a stark reminder of the danger posed by intimate partner violence and coercive control. Angie's Angels is working to share Angie's story to raise awareness about intimate partner violence. It is are calling for stronger protections for victims and for survivors. Angie's parents, Brian and Suzanne, and her best friends, Amanda and Renee, have channelled their grief and pain into this amazing action. They want to make sure that no family and no community has to go through the pain that they have. Their bravery and their dedication in the face of such an unimaginable loss is nothing short of heroic. They have turned their horrific personal tragedy into a powerful force for change, and for that they deserve our utmost support and respect. Caitlin Jennings was someone who was a bright light to the people who knew her. Her father, Dan, connected with Angie's Angels after Caitlin was killed in London. Her life was also cut short when she became the victim of a coercive, controlling intimate partner. Dan has told me that if coercive control had been criminalized, Caitlin would still be here with us today. His words stuck with me, and I think they should stick with everyone in the chamber. We should all feel the urgency of tackling gender-based violence. A woman is killed every six days in Canada. Caitlin's story and Angie's story are not isolated incidents. They are part of a larger, systemic problem that we as legislators have the power to address. Passing the bill is one important step, but we must do so much more. When we vote on the bill, I want members to think about Angie and Caitlin, and to think of Angie's and Caitlin's loved ones who have dedicated their time and so much of their lives to preventing situations like theirs from happening. As legislators, we have a responsibility to stop this kind of abuse. I urge my colleagues to work with me to ensure that the bill makes its way rapidly through the red chamber and becomes law as quickly as possible. Let us pass the bill and take a crucial step towards a safer, more just society.

613 words