THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 11, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 10:29 a.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code; and, in camera, to examine and report on matters related to the impact of artificial intelligence in Canada.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome. Independent Senator Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba for a few more weeks.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Hello. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Good morning. Dawn Arnold.
[Translation]
I’m also from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator Hay: Good morning. Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Cuzner: Good morning. Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today, the committee continues its study of Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide a content warning for this meeting. Today, we will be discussing experiences related to intimate partner violence. This may be triggering to some people in the room with us as well as to those watching and listening to our broadcast. Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 988.
For those of us in the room, should you need support during the meeting, a bilingual counsellor from Homewood Health is here with us today. At any time during the meeting, you may signal to the page or clerk, and we will connect you.
Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s Employee and Family Assistance Program is available to them and offers short-term counselling for both personal and work-related concerns as well as crisis counselling.
For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming the following witnesses: From the Department of Justice Canada, we welcome Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Alyssa McLeod, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. From Women and Gender Equality Canada, we welcome Frances McRae, Deputy Minister, Women and Gender Equality and Youth; and Marjorie Emmanuel, Executive Director, Gender-Based Violence. Thank you for joining us today.
I understand that the officials present here today will not be delivering opening remarks. As such, we will proceed directly to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question, and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or to all witnesses.
The first question will be from Senator Burey, the deputy chair.
Senator Burey: First of all, I would like to say that I support this bill. I appreciate the cooperation from all parties to bring it to this stage.
I reviewed some of the House of Commons testimony from April 27, 2026, when it was adopted at third reading. I will quote some things and then ask you a question.
Mr. Bruce Fanjoy from Carleton said:
. . . Bill C-225 does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader set of reforms that this Parliament has been advancing to address violence, coercive control and systemic gaps in the criminal justice response.
He then cites Bill C-16 and Bill C-14, and he goes on to say:
Legislative reform is one part of a broader response that must also include prevention, early intervention, housing supports, mental health services and resources for frontline organizations. . . .
My question to all of you is this: How do your policy frameworks for modernizing the criminal justice system and public safety take this whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach?
Frances McRae, Deputy Minister, Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Women and Gender Equality Canada: Thank you very much for the question.
I confirm that we believe that addressing gender-based violence is a much broader issue than simply dealing with legislation. Legislation is important, but it is not the whole solution.
I would point to a couple of things in terms of policy framework. First is the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, which was a federal-provincial-territorial, or FPT, agreement in November 2022. That plan has been funded through federal resources but also funded more than 50% through provincial-territorial resources. We have formal bilateral agreements under which we have funds that are supporting the implementation of provincial-territorial action plans.
They are provincial-territorial action plans because, really, the provinces and territories have most of the levers at their fingertips to deal with issues on the ground.
That plan is a critical piece. It has five pillars. One of the key pillars is prevention. We certainly work with our provinces and territories to make sure significant attention is devoted to prevention as well.
The second framework I would point to is the federal Gender-based Violence Strategy, which brings together a number of different federal departments, including Women and Gender Equality Canada but also the Department of Justice Canada, Public Safety Canada and public health in conversations about the various levers we need to be addressing and the programming and policy tools that we have to work together to ensure a holistic federal approach.
Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: We also agree that legislation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s extremely important to support implementation of legislation. I would point out that at the FPT level, right now, work is ongoing to develop and implement training for criminal justice professionals on intimate partner violence broadly but coercive control in particular. It will include training on the various aspects of this bill. Thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you for being here. I think I have a short question; I’m not sure.
Yesterday, I asked Ms. Henderson about what the next steps look like after Bailey’s Law from her perspective. She pointed to GPS monitoring and geofencing and real-time victim alerts as possible next steps. When she spoke to survivors about it, she could hear a collective breath. Could you just comment on that and how hard that next step would be?
Alyssa McLeod, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you very much for the question. Perhaps I can provide a general overview of the criminal law provisions relating to electronic monitoring and GPS monitoring that already exist. Certainly, it’s a very important tool that can make incredible differences for victims and survivors of crime.
I highlight that at the bail stage, there are provisions in the Criminal Code that require a court to consider electronic monitoring, among other conditions, as a potential condition of release for an accused on bail. This applies where an accused is charged with an intimate partner violence offence among others.
Also, at the peace bond stage, when we’re in the realm of talking about protection orders, there are also provisions in the Criminal Code that allow for a court to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of the peace bond with the consent of the Attorney General. A number of provisions exist in the law that address electronic monitoring and allow them to be imposed as conditions of release. But when it comes to the way that electronic monitoring is implemented, it is a responsibility of the administration of justice which falls to the provinces and territories.
Certainly, there is a lot of potential there to promote the ways in which electronic monitoring can be used. The federal government is working in collaboration with the provinces and territories on how to address this and is considering ways that this can be moved forward.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Good morning, again. Thank you for being here. My question is for both departments. Maybe we can start with Ms. Levman from Justice and then the other department.
Bailey’s Law focuses on cases where a homicide is preceded by a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour. I want to emphasize the word “pattern” which was added to the bill through an amendment at the House committee and received support from all parties. It was also highlighted as an important improvement during second reading in the Senate.
The earlier version of the bill did not include this language. Some witnesses raised concerns about that omission. Could you explain why requiring a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct is important and how that change helps ensure that the bill better protects victims while focusing on the most serious cases of intimate partner violence?
Ms. Levman: Thank you for the question. I believe some concerns were raised yesterday by a witness from the National Association of Women and the Law in respect of this provision. A concern was raised that it could be applied to abused victims who kill their abusers. I would like to reassure the committee that the provision is carefully crafted to avoid that result.
Specifically, clause 1 of the bill would specify that murder is murder in the first degree where the victim is the perpetrator’s intimate partner and the death is caused by the perpetrator while engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, or after having engaged in such a pattern, with intent to cause the victim to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened.
The concerns about victims being improperly treated as perpetrators are addressed in this provision and also in Bill C-16’s proposed coercive control offence.
First of all, the proposed provision requires proof that the person who killed their intimate partner engaged in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, either before or during the killing. That phrase is clearly defined by the proposed coercive control offence in Bill C-16, and that offence was carefully crafted to avoid the possibility that victims of abuse could be captured by it, including by clearly defining “pattern of coercive or controlling conduct” as any combination or repeated instances of three types of conduct: first, violence toward any person or any animal known to the victim; second, sexually coercive conduct; and third, conduct that would cause a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened.
This third category of conduct is intended to target the subtle ways in which abusers may seek to control their victims, and it also includes examples that are taken from the lived experiences of survivors.
The provision also includes clear direction to criminal justice practitioners to consider the whole context of the alleged offending, including the nature of the relationship and who targeted whose vulnerabilities. These safeguards are intended to focus on ongoing abusive conduct that has a cumulative impact on the victim, rather than incidents of abuse that may reflect someone responding to abuse, not committing it themselves. So it applies to abusers who engage in this conduct, not victims who respond to the abuse.
Essentially, the proposed offence requires criminal justice practitioners to place intimate partner violence cases through a coercive control lens to contextualize the allegations of abuse, which is intended to facilitate identification of the true aggressor in cases that involve dual allegations or allegations against victims.
I would also stress that Bill C-225’s proposed intimate partner violence murder provision also requires proof that the perpetrator intended to cause the victim to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened. Victims who kill their abusers don’t have this intention; they act in response to abuse to protect themselves or others.
I would also like to share with the committee our views on narrowing the scope of the provision to apply only to killings involving a female victim, and we would stress that this would mean that gender-diverse people and men would not receive the protection of the law, where they’re killed in exactly the same circumstances as a female intimate partner, and that is an intimate context involving power imbalances and the abuse of vulnerabilities. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Levman, I have allowed extra time because you did not give a presentation.
Senator Senior: Thank you for being here, especially on such short notice. We appreciate it. I’m continuing along the same line, but I want to put a bit of a different lens on it.
The report entitled Injustices and Miscarriages of Justice Experienced by 12 Indigenous Women documents a broader pattern of Indigenous survivors of violence against women who were criminalized for responding to violence inflicted on them and characterized as a result of sexist and racist myths and stereotypes as controlling and as the aggressors.
How do you propose to ensure that women like these 12 women, who act in self-defence, are protected from certain criminalization and further punishment under this bill? What amendments would need to be made to ensure this does not happen?
I heard the response to Senator Martin. You talked about proof and patterns of coercion. It’s within that context that I’m asking, and I would like to be able to get a response from each of you, please.
Ms. McRae: Thank you very much for the question. I will speak to the connection that we see at Women and Gender Equality Canada between the pattern of coercive control and intimate partner violence. I’m going to speak to that comment. In terms of the amendments and the bill itself, I’m going to turn to my Justice colleagues.
It is very clear that there is a link between patterns of controlling behaviours and coercive control and intimate partner violence. All the statistics you would look at say that there are usually escalations. These kinds of behaviours occur in sequence; they occur in different ways. So the concept of pattern is critical here because — and I think our colleagues will talk about that — that is essentially the distinction between self-defence, which is not a pattern, and the notion of coercive control, which is a pattern. That’s really the fundamental difference we’re talking about.
We know that the severity of intimate partner violence rises with the number and extent of coercive behaviours.
Senator Senior: I’m really looking at —
Ms. McRae: The amendment?
Senator Senior: It’s not so much the amendment in terms of your response because I know that will come from Justice, but it’s in terms of proof of coercion, particularly because racialized and Indigenous women and women with disabilities may not have the ability to prove that. They may not have reported it. So that is the context in which I am asking the question.
Ms. McRae: Thank you for the clarification. This is where the additional inclusion in Bill C-16 of coercive control as a criminal behaviour is going to be an important piece here to ensure that police and authorities are able to see that coercive behaviour and to ensure that victims and survivors have the opportunity to see that this is actually criminal behaviour.
Right now, it’s not there, and I know I’ve talked to a lot of police who have said that there is not currently any coercive control criminal charge that can be laid. The critical part of Bill C-16 is the inclusion of coercive control as a criminal offence, which does allow police to be able to understand how these behaviours add up and what they end up creating in terms of a situation of intimate partner violence. That piece of the inclusion of coercive control as a criminal offence in Bill C-16 is a big key to the next step.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’m trying to understand this amendment as well. We understand the words, in that it seeks to protect someone who might take action to protect themselves. That’s clear to me.
I’m not just talking about this bill in particular. For years, we’ve heard about — which many bills have also discussed — the research, statistics and data showing that, in cases of intimate partner violence, there are many situations where victims don’t document or report the incidents. It happens in secret, behind closed doors.
If someone takes action for the purpose of protecting themselves — I’m trying to understand — and it was done in secret, then it’s not documented.
The person didn’t file a complaint and some documentation might be missing. How can we ensure then that this person remains protected? How can this be proven?
Ms. McRae: Thank you for the question. I think it comes back to what the senator mentioned.
Senator Petitclerc: To some extent, yes.
Ms. McRae: Let me go back to the first issue, the fact that this legislation won’t fix everything in and of itself. It’s important to keep that in mind.
We’re doing a lot of work with the provinces and territories and within our department. We’re working with organizations on the ground that help women make sure they know their rights and understand the law. For example, Bill C-16 provides a new way of seeing crime that will help women understand that what they are going through is not right and is not legal. It’s a crime.
That’s part of the conversation: empowering women so they can see that what’s happening to them is not right. It’s not just that something in their lives isn’t working. In fact, it’s actually something criminal.
It’s not just about the law. It’s part of all the work we do on the ground to empower women so they know their rights, so they can recognize what constitutes a crime and so they know how to assert their rights.
This type of work requires taking a longer-term view. It’s not just the law that will make a difference, but the fact that women recognize that what’s happening to them is a crime. Currently, that’s not the case.
[English]
Senator Muggli: It’s a perfect segue. I asked a question yesterday about this, and I want to ask it again to the Justice folks at an evidentiary level.
Do you foresee an increase in subpoenas for hospitals or counsellors when there is a suspicion or maybe a family report that there was some history? If so, how will that be managed in terms of communication to these sectors and training, et cetera? As a former CEO of a hospital, I can tell you that it is not easy to move through these systems with subpoenas, et cetera, or even professionals who have a relationship in terms of the privacy and confidentiality aspects.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts about that.
Ms. Levman: Thank you. These are exactly the types of issues being considered at the FPT level in terms of developing the training necessary to rule out the coercive control offence. To underscore some of what my colleague said, I would say that a new offence of coercive control is very modern criminal law. It targets ongoing conduct. That is very different from traditional criminal law, which really looks at incidents that are often in isolation from each other. That will provide the framework that is necessary to troubleshoot these types of issues.
Senator Muggli: In a case where there is not a report from the victim of any history, do you foresee that there might be requests to subpoena records from places like hospitals, counsellors, et cetera, as it relates to this bill?
Ms. Levman: I see you’re talking about private records and that type of thing.
Senator Muggli: Yes.
Ms. Levman: That already exists as a concern, and there are provisions in the code that govern how and when private records can be produced for defence and can be adduced at trial.
Bill C-16 would strengthen those provisions and ensure that where there is a sexual aspect to a coercive control case, those protections will be available.
Senator Muggli: Does it have to be a sexual aspect?
Ms. Levman: Yes, those provisions apply in the context of sexual offences. Bill C-16 would expand it to all sexual offences.
Senator Muggli: I see a gap here in all kinds of forms of coercion potential.
I’m wondering what your thoughts are regarding how this bill might be publicized as it relates to encouraging family and friends of victims to make reports to police where they feel their loved one won’t or can’t make a report so that there is some evidence existing on police record that a family member, for example, has made a prior report. Do you think that’s an appropriate thing to encourage people to do?
Ms. Levman: It would have to be determined in each individual case as to whether it is appropriate.
Senator Muggli: I’m asking whether it is appropriate to communicate and publicize that family members or loved ones should consider reporting it when they see a loved one being subjected to coercion.
Ms. McRae: I’m happy to answer that question. It’s a very good question, and it’s one of the things that we think about a lot: How do we increase overall public awareness of our own responsibilities? Whether you’re in a grocery store or you’re a cashier or you’re a bus driver, what do you do when you see something that doesn’t look right? Certainly, family members would be part of that.
We believe that greater attention to issues like coercive control is better. If we do it right in terms of promoting awareness of the fact that this is not okay and that this is actually something we should all be very concerned about as the public and members of society, we believe that this will help.
If I think about the Signal for Help as an example on issues of human trafficking — and Senator Senior knows that very well — this is a critical piece. Increasing people’s awareness of what is going on right under their nose is actually an important part of ending gender-based violence.
I would add that many of us are familiar with this in, for example, hotel rooms and airports. You have a much better awareness now of things like human trafficking because of campaigns, some of it with funding that we have done, and certainly the Signal for Help was part of that. But this is now an international standard.
We really do have the ability to engage and bring in members of society to help end gender-based violence. It’s not going to happen if we don’t do that.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: My question is for Ms. McRae or Ms. Emmanuel.
The bill came upon us rather quickly and I don’t think we’ll have the opportunity to consult community organizations that are working in the field. I assume that your organization has a network of these groups and that you’re in regular contact with them. Can you share with us any feedback you’ve received from these community organizations? Do they support this bill? Do they have any concerns? Are there any shortcomings they see or any improvements they would suggest? I would appreciate it if you could share this feedback with us, since we won’t be able to hear directly from them.
Ms. McRae: That’s a very good question. We often consult with stakeholders. However, in the context of the bill, it would have been a good idea to hold detailed discussions on specific aspects of the legislation.
To begin with, everything we see in the proposed amendments is the result of feedback and perspectives received from the community, particularly the inclusion of coercive control and the clarification regarding the nature of such control. It really is a pattern of control of activities that makes a difference.
Before I turn to my colleagues at the Department of Justice, there is one other thing I wanted to mention. It concerns the work of the Department of Finance regarding financial control and financial abuse. This is part of coercive control, and there is a code on economic abuse that is currently being discussed with the banking sector.
[English]
Ms. Levman: Thank you for the question. The work on coercive control has been ongoing for several years now. The committee may be familiar with previous private members’ bills, including Bill C-332. That bill was significantly amended by government amendments in the form in which it is almost identical to what you see in Bill C-16. Those amendments were heavily informed by work at the FPT level with our provincial and territorial colleagues. Obviously, they are primarily responsible for enforcing the law, so their input is critical. Also, in the fall of 2023, the Department of Justice Canada led an engagement process with stakeholders in collaboration with our provincial and territorial colleagues to inform our work.
We heard from a broad range of stakeholders who expressed different views on the coercive control offence. Some of them were aligned with some of the concerns that you heard yesterday. I have explained already how the offence has been crafted to address those concerns. Others have stressed very strongly the importance of the coercive control lens and the importance of having an offence on the books that specifically addresses patterns of conduct which better reflect the lived experiences of survivors. That is what you see in Bill C-16.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to the officials for being here today. Thank you for your ongoing work, Ms. McRae and your colleagues.
I want to shift the focus a little bit. I recognize that this is not necessarily specific to the text of Bill C-225. But in fact, in many of the cases where the criminal law has been weaponized against victims — and, Ms. Levman, I appreciated your explanation — it is happening at the level of the police. That’s where it is happening. That’s where the greatest damage and the least accountability are.
Forgive me if I didn’t fully capture your response, but I was hearing a real focus, understandably, at the prosecution level. I wonder if you could please address the scenario of first point of contact and whether you think the bill in any way protects against that kind of weaponization or — let’s just be generous and say — misunderstanding by the police.
Ms. McRae: I have two elements to the answer to that question. One is just referring to the criticality of training and the really important role that we need to play with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which does do quite a lot of work in this area. Training is going to be key. I have had RCMP officers say to me that one of the things they wanted to see included in the Criminal Code was coercive control because they see things that they cannot do much about in some cases because they have no way to lay a criminal charge.
In terms of trust with police — to get to that overall point because I think it is an important piece — we have seen work where, for example, women’s shelters are working in close collaboration with police for trauma-informed interviewing when there are issues around safety and people fleeing from violence. There are places where there has been a lot of work done in partnership so that the police are going to places where the survivor is comfortable. There has been a tremendous amount of work done in that area. I don’t think it is at scale yet, but there has been a lot of work. In the latest Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces, which we just finished with Statistics Canada, I want to talk about the issue of reporting to police.
Senator McPhedran: So far, you haven’t addressed it.
Ms. McRae: I just wanted to touch on that trust piece. On sexual assault, 8.6% of people who responded to the survey said that they reported to police when something happened to them, while 28% reported on physical assaults. Reporting has improved, but it is definitely not where we need to go. Among those who did report sexual assault, about 70% felt informed, respected and believed, while less than 50% said that it wasn’t worth the time and effort. So there is a long way to go on this area, and you are quite right to raise it.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: My question is less about the bill but certainly central to the issue. A number of senators have talked about upstream opportunities in prevention. Ms. McLeod, in response to Senator Hay’s question, you spoke a little bit about electronic monitoring. The justice system has seen good success in sentencing provisions, like house arrest, where it is very commonplace now to monitor that. It seems to be a real logical tool to put in the bag. Are there provinces that are further ahead of others? Are there areas where they are having success with this? Is the technology there? It seems like this can obviously bring great benefit.
Ms. McLeod: Thank you for the question. I’m not an expert in electronic monitoring per se, and I’m not familiar with the exact nature of the programs that exist across jurisdictions. What I can say for context is that, as mentioned before, electronic monitoring is an administration of justice issue that falls under the responsibility of the provinces and territories. What I do know is that the process and the use of electronic monitoring as a tool vary across jurisdictions. Some provinces and territories offer electronic monitoring programs, for example, that cover the cost of these devices, whereas other jurisdictions have a requirement for the accused to contact a third-party service and bear the cost of electronic monitoring themselves.
I do know that certain jurisdictions, such as Quebec and Alberta, have invested significantly in electronic monitoring for certain high-risk offenders or for accused on bail for intimate partner violence. We do know that it is not a perfect solution to concerns about intimate partner violence. There can be challenges that include technological problems and also the potential to create a false sense of security for victims and survivors of crime, which is absolutely a concern. As I mentioned previously, this is something that the federal government is studying in collaboration with provinces and territories.
Ms. McRae: Perhaps I could give a couple of statistics on prevention. Then I will go back to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence that we have with provinces and territories. When we originally discussed the various pillars of the strategy, the federal government ensured that the provinces and territories had to spend at least 25% of federal funding on prevention. That was a critical piece. In our upcoming report in about two weeks, which is our report on the collective impact of the dollars that are spent on the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence with all input from provinces and territories, you will see that about 46% of the federal funding has actually gone to prevention activities in 2024-25, so it’s a significant amount.
The Chair: Ms. Levman, my question relates to the intersection between Bill C-225 and Bill C-16. Because my colleagues have not addressed this, I will.
Are there any concerns we need to be aware of when considering this bill with the fact that Bill C-16 will be considered here in the Senate next week? Are there specific areas in this bill that might be at risk through the upcoming consideration of the next bill that we need to be aware of?
Ms. Levman: I don’t believe so, and that is because Bill C-225’s coordinating amendments are carefully crafted to ensure that both bills are aligned. There are some provisions in Bill C-225 that are not in Bill C-16, such as the proposed intimate partner violence-specific offence. That is coordinated with the definition in Bill C-16. The ones that are similar or the same — the murder/manslaughter provisions — are carefully coordinated. The only concern I would like to bring to the committee’s attention is that amendments to the provisions that are carefully coordinated with Bill C-16 could have an impact on Bill C-16.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here today. I’m quite hopeful listening to you talk about 46% of the money going to prevention. I have done a lot of work in schools, particularly with Grade 4s and Grade 5s, watched movies like Inside the Manosphere and spoken with university presidents that are super concerned about the rise of misogyny and what’s happening on university campuses right now.
How do you think this can help with that? I liked what you said about making the parallel with human trafficking, but can you give us some tangible examples of how the passing of this bill could help combat some of those other contextual items in our society today?
Ms. McRae: Thank you for the question because that’s really our ultimate goal: to reduce and end gender-based violence. If I had the solution, I would love to implement it.
I’ll go back again to the initial question that we had when opening the session. It will take broad effort. It will take legislation and societal awareness. We have a lot of work that goes into research and data to ensure that academics and others understand the situation and that police use these kinds of data to be able to shape their responses.
On the issue of young people, we have a campaign that is called It’s Not Just. It’s an awareness campaign aimed at high school students. We do find that it is easy for young people to not recognize what they are seeing, particularly things like coercive control. When you have someone saying to you, “Oh, I don’t want you to see your friends because I really want you to just be with me,” that’s part of coercive control. If it is, “I don’t want you to wear that,” that’s part of a pattern of coercive control. We are trying to start with that awareness at the level of young people to really understand what is going on.
If I were to ask how we get to perspectives on misogyny and women, we are concerned with what we see, particularly around young men and the “manosphere” of views around gender equality, even. The latest statistics from Statistics Canada would tell you that many young men do not believe that women face barriers in society at all, and men who do believe it are in the older age groups. Young women absolutely believe women face barriers, but there is a big disconnect. That’s on a broader level.
I would point to the work that Minister Michel is doing on men and boys’ health and mental health in particular. We have to start from that place of understanding what is going on here. Many issues with young men are causing problems. School results and graduation rates are not where they need to be. Health-seeking behaviour is not there.
I saw a survey today. Young men believe that going to get help for mental health is a sign of weakness, so we have a lot of work to do here, and it is very holistic.
Senator Senior: I was hoping to get a response earlier from Ms. Levman regarding the question I asked in terms of women who act in self-defence where there may not have been collected proof in terms of action they may take that may result in the death of their intimate partner. What amendments would need to be made to ensure this does not happen?
Ms. Levman: Thank you for the question. These are basically evidentiary issues. The way that the coercive control offence deals with that is by clearly delineating what kind of evidence is necessary to establish a pattern of coercive control. We have already been through the three types of conduct.
What would be really important is for the victim to feel safe, to come forward and to testify herself as to the circumstances around the incident that occurred. My colleague has already talked about the importance of trauma-informed practices to encourage or help people feel safe when giving that kind of evidence. There will also be, as part of the training, a focus on what we call circumstantial evidence in these types of cases.
The only other ongoing conduct offence we have in the code is the human trafficking offence, incidentally, and there has been a lot of work done in that context to assist with gathering the evidence necessary to establish the offence. You are talking about the reverse, which is somebody who is in a position where they are accused of an offence but they have offended because of the context of coercive control in which they find themselves. That will also be addressed in training because it is very important to understand the context of offending and victimization and understand that they can be closely linked. The types of cases you are pointing to are quintessential in that regard. It will be critical for police to be able to identify the overall context of any offending, whether the allegation is that somebody has committed coercive control or the allegation is that somebody has killed somebody else in the context of coercive control.
Senator Muggli: This is for the Department of Justice. Coming from Saskatchewan, where we regularly have the highest rates of intimate partner violence among provinces in the country, do you think that police services and court systems have the necessary resources to manage the increased responsibility that this bill, as well as the other bill, would require? What types of increased resources do you think would be necessary? I’m raising this because in the House of Commons study, the National Police Federation warned that Bill C-225 imposes significant operational burdens on overstretched local detachments without federal funding, including the need for extended pretrial detention and management and increased evidence retention.
Ms. Levman: Thank you for the question. Yes, the bill itself recognizes that implementing this framework will be an uphill battle, and it does that by postponing the coming into force of the coercive control offence by two years from Royal Assent. That is specifically to recognize the kinds of issues that the senator has raised just now, where they need to be troubleshot and we need to discuss it. Because we are a federal state, we need to work together to do that.
That is why we are committed to continuing our work with our provincial and territorial colleagues toward that end to address these types of issues in the context of training, ensuring that the training materials are ready, that trauma-informed practices are understood and that we identify any necessary areas where certain jurisdictions may need additional support. We would work within the federal family to assist with that.
Senator Muggli: Let’s hope that can happen in a shorter period than two years. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I’m going to try to pick up where Senator Senior left off with you. I’m pretty sure what she was hoping for and certainly what I hope for is that you would specifically address the concerns that were brought by a previous witness, in particular Dr. Suzanne Zaccour from the National Association of Women and the Law, or NAWL. Knowing how thorough you are, I’m sure you watched and listened attentively to her testimony here. As I understand it, there was a very clear call for more of a gendered amendment and to move away from the kind of gender-neutral description we heard from Ms. Levman.
We are faced with an incontrovertible fact, which is the vast majority of these cases are, in fact, gendered where the perpetrator is male and the victim is female. If you can address that in very specific terms, please, because I think what we are looking at is proposed subsection 231(3.1) and the renumbering as subsection 236(1). If you could, please specifically address what was brought to this committee by NAWL.
Ms. Levman: Thank you for the question. I hoped to address it at the end of my initial comments. What I wanted to stress for this committee is the impact of gendering clause 1 of the bill. While I completely agree that the vast majority of victims of coercive control are female, there are other groups of people who are also vulnerable to violence who do not identify as female, or it could be men who may be victimized by other men in the context of intimate partner relationships. So gendering this provision would mean denying the protection of that provision to those groups. I already explained how the provision is carefully crafted to exclude or avoid the possibility of a victim being caught by it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I’m going to ask for this in writing, if I may. Please address specifically the proposed amendment from NAWL which, in fact, does not specify “female” or “male.” It is worded in a way that is recommended to capture all cases. I’m not sure your answer is as useful as I might have hoped. If you could send it in writing, please.
Senator Boudreau: I am not a lawyer here, but I will try to formulate a legal question. If the bill passes, how will these new provisions deal with a plea? So if Crown prosecutors have the ability to offer a lesser charge on a guilty plea, wouldn’t that then negate the whole purpose of the bill? I am trying to understand how Crown prosecutors would deal with guilty pleas.
Ms. Levman: Thank you. That’s an entirely fair question. I want to acknowledge that charging practices and pleas, et cetera, are very complex in the context of an ongoing conduct offence.
What we have is experience with the human trafficking offence. I have already explained to the committee that it is our other ongoing conduct offence. They can be very difficult to prosecute because they often involve multiple charges. So they will involve the human trafficking charge as well as incident-based charges for the types of conduct that human traffickers engage in to maintain control over their victims, such as assault or uttering threats. That does open the possibility for pleas for other offences.
We anticipate that could be an issue in the context of implementing the coercive control offence. I would like to reassure the committee that my provincial and territorial colleagues and the Department of Justice are well aware of this issue and are currently troubleshooting it in the work that we are doing to develop the training.
Senator Senior: Ms. McRae, thank you so much for the recognition earlier. What I’m concerned about, as I see the gaps, is along the lines of prevention, but it’s public education, such as the Signal for Help, which is probably quite dated now, I’m so sorry to say. Are there any plans to actually implement some public education around this?
Ms. McRae: Thank you very much for that question, senator. We will continue our work around awareness. I believe we need a much bigger societal awareness piece. There is a lot of information now that is starting to come out around the cost of gender-based violence. Actually, it’s the dollar cost. The City of Calgary has done this, and the Province of British Columbia has done this. We are working on something a little more —
Senator Senior: [Technical difficulties] it was a $10-billion problem.
Ms. McRae: Right. I think that was a 2018 study from Justice. That is not even counting all of these other pieces. If you really counted coercive control, I think it would be significant.
One of the areas we are quite focused on is employers and having employers understand, just as they did when issues of mental health first came up, that the cost to them of gender-based violence, whether it is absenteeism, health claims or mental health strains — all of those are costing them.
In society, we still see gender-based violence as a women’s problem. It is not a women’s problem. It is a broad societal problem, and we still have a lot of work to do in terms of broadening out the accountability for addressing it. It starts with things like engaging men and boys in these kinds of conversations, but it is not the only group. We need to get the resources, I believe, of other sectors in society around us.
As you know, senator, we don’t have a lot of philanthropy dedicated to this kind of cause. It is a much bigger problem, and we don’t have broad ownership of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence in terms of solutions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. McRae.
Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank the witnesses for your testimony today, especially for the short notice on which you responded and have shown up to allow us to have this fulsome discussion because of your participation.
For our second panel, I would like to welcome, by video conference, Crystal Giesbrecht, Director of Research at the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan. Thank you for joining us today. For your opening remarks, you will have five minutes, Ms. Giesbrecht.
Crystal Giesbrecht, Director of Research, Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan: Good day. On behalf of the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan, or PATHS, I am pleased to share our support for Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, known as Bailey’s Law.
Over 120,000 victims of intimate partner violence came to the attention of police in the last reported year. In a 10-year period, there were over 900 domestic homicides in Canada. Intimate partner violence has severe consequences not just for primary victims — collateral victims including family, friends, workplaces and communities are also harmed beyond measure. Dozens of children lose their mothers to intimate partner homicide every year in Canada.
The Chair: I’m just letting you know we cannot connect, Ms. Giesbrecht. We’re going to request a brief from you and we will get it translated.
Ferda Simpson, Clerk of the Committee: She did provide her speaking notes.
The Chair: We will share that as well. We are going to proceed to the next section of the meeting. I’d like to again thank the witnesses who made themselves available to us on short notice today.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Senators, we are back in public and looking for approval of the motion for the adoption of the report as it stands with the corrections that we made during our discussions and deliberations.
Is it agreed that the draft report be adopted and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report, taking into consideration the discussions at today’s meeting, including any necessary editorial, grammatical and translation changes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Is it agreed that the chair be authorized to table the report in the Senate or deposit the report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, at the earliest opportunity?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Is there any further business, senators?
If not, we will revert back to Monday’s continuing deliberation on Bill C-225.
Colleagues, this meeting concludes the witness testimony that occurred earlier today under the work plan for this bill. The committee’s next meeting, planned for Monday, June 15, at 6 p.m., will be dedicated to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-225. Senators wishing to move amendments or append observations to the report are kindly asked to submit them to the committee clerk in advance of next week’s meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)