Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of intimate partner). I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her work in sponsoring this bill, and I commend her for her continued efforts in speaking out against violence against women.

This bill comes to us at a rare moment. The 2022 Ontario inquest into the murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam and the work of the Mass Casualty Commission have educated and challenged us to do more with respect to gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and coercive control. The House of Commons reached a compelling consensus on how we at the federal level can assist in addressing coercive control in particular.

Canadians as well understand the gravity of the larger problem. In a national survey I commissioned in 2021 examining public perceptions of issues facing Canadian women, 83% of Canadians — that includes 86% of women and 80% of men — think that domestic violence is a very important problem facing women in this country today. This ranks as the most important problem facing women in the eyes of the Canadian public.

This topic is difficult for the individuals, families and communities affected. At the outset, I wish to acknowledge them as we bear witness to their experiences. The sponsor of the bill, member of Parliament Laurel Collins, said in her second-reading speech, “Statistically speaking, we all know someone who has been in an abusive relationship.”

She recounted a story of her sister being in such a situation and her being scared for her sister’s life.

Senator Miville-Dechêne in her second-reading speech shared the story of Brigitte, who explained that there was little physical violence from her partner but who recounted blackmail, threats, manipulation and insults.

The Minister of Justice agreed that intimate partner violence, or IPV, is an epidemic in his August 2023 response to the recommendations of the Ontario inquest.

The Government of Ontario — my province, our government — is supporting a private member’s bill, Bill 173, at Queen’s Park in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to the same end, framing it as a public health issue.

There are many factors at play in understanding and addressing coercive control, and we must make a start. This bill is a critical step in our ongoing efforts to protect vulnerable individuals from the insidious forms of intimate partner violence, which we also refer to as domestic or spousal abuse, that may not always leave visible scars but can be just as devastating. It can occur in public and private spaces and online. It is gender-based, and we must also keep in mind its intersectional aspects in all the work we do.

The intent of this legislation, which is to recognize and criminalize coercive control — also referred to in the United Kingdom’s legislation as “controlling or coercive behaviour,” or CCB — aligns with Canada’s collective commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of all Canadians, including those trapped in relationships characterized by manipulation, intimidation and control.

So what is coercive control? It is a pattern of conduct that consists of any combination or repeated instances of certain acts. The bill criminalizes a combination of acts intended to control or attempting to control someone. Examples can be controlling or trying to control someone’s movement, finances, social media, whom they spend time with; going through their cellphone or private messages; controlling what they wear, their gender expression, expression of religious beliefs, diet, taking of medications or access to health care.

When you think about this, think about the behaviours that I have just mentioned. How would you go about trying to prove that someone is controlling these things? This is not easy. We have seen progress in our legal framework through existing legislation such as the Divorce Act and the Judges Act, which have begun to address aspects of coercive control.

The amendments to the Divorce Act which came into effect in 2021 include specific provisions that recognize family violence, including coercive or controlling behaviour, as a factor in determining the best interests of the child. The act also requires that courts consider the impact of family violence on parenting arrangements, acknowledging that the psychological and emotional harm caused by coercive control can be profound.

The Judges Act, too, has been amended to provide judges with training on family violence, including coercive control. This training is crucial, as it equips our judiciary with the knowledge and sensitivity required to recognize and appropriately respond to cases where coercive control is at play, even when the evidence may be difficult or not immediately apparent.

While these legislative advancements are significant, the implementation of coercive control legislation presents several challenges, as noted by speakers at second reading in the other place. Appropriate and effective education initiatives will be essential, including educating all levels of government and public officials, as well as educating the public and communities, since this problem cannot be solved without all of us working together.

Further, as is often the case, we cannot think that creating a criminal offence is the panacea. I take note of other public policy responses grounded in health and safety that are also essential. Kirsten Mercer, the lawyer who represented the organization End Violence Against Women Renfrew County at the Ontario inquest, has said, “The focus on downstream impacts of IPV cannot come at the expense of prevention.” She said that Criminal Code changes should be coupled with “. . . meaningful investments in prevention and true safety planning for survivors.”

The covert nature of coercive control makes it difficult to detect and prove in a court of law. Unlike physical violence, which often leaves tangible evidence, coercive control can be subtle, manipulative and protracted over time, making it challenging for victims to recognize and for authorities to intervene effectively.

There is also the issue of balancing the protection of victims with the rights of the accused. Given the particular nature of coercive control, there is a risk that allegations could be misused or misunderstood, leading to potential miscarriages of justice with respect to either victims or the accused. It is crucial to ensure that our legal processes are robust enough to differentiate between genuine cases of coercive control and other forms of conflict within relationships.

Colleagues, this legislation is contentious, but it has received all-party support in the other place. This goes beyond partisanship.

Now, other jurisdictions have also adopted statutory measures, and we can learn from them. Although data is limited, England and Scotland have approached criminalizing coercive or controlling behaviour slightly differently than we have. In England, the Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. This law is focused on patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, providing a framework that captures the ongoing nature of coercive control. Their approach has been described as a cover-the-gaps approach.

A review of the coercive or controlling behaviour legislation was released by the Home Office in 2021, showing an increase in the number of offences recorded by police from approximately 4,000 in 2016-17 to just under 25,000 offences recorded in 2019-20. In 2019, the number of defendants prosecuted for CCB offences increased by 18% from the previous year.

These increases demonstrate that the CCB offence is being used across the criminal justice system, suggesting that the legislation has provided an improved legal framework to tackle CCB and that where evidence is strong enough to prosecute and convict, the courts are recognizing the severity of the abuse.

England’s Home Office, in a review of their legislation, stated:

Generally, all stakeholder groups . . . welcomed the legislation. They felt that its introduction had raised awareness of CCB, and that it has been beneficial in creating the legislative framework to prosecute perpetrators. . . .

However, education was also a key common issue. The review stated:

There is a need for greater awareness of CCB among the public to empower victims to recognise their abuse and report it.

The English legislation lists assault as a potential part of CCB, whereas the bill before us does not.

Scotland, on the other hand, has gone further with its Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which criminalizes a broader range of behaviours, including psychological abuse and manipulation. The Scottish model is comprehensive; it covers physical and sexual violence as well as psychological control within the same offence.

The initial review of Scottish legislation in 2023 reported, as a main finding, a lack of communication, involvement and/or explanation of procedures and decision making for victims and witnesses, exacerbating victim stress when attending court and contributing to feeling of powerlessness and marginalization. However, overall, the research findings echo wider views that the act is a leading piece of legislation which better reflects how victims experience domestic abuse.

As we move forward with this bill, we inform our approach by these experiences. We must strive to create a legal framework that is both effective in protecting victims and fair in its application, with clear guidelines for law enforcement, the judiciary and social services.

In conclusion, colleagues, I support the principles behind this legislation. Coercive control is a form of abuse that must be recognized and addressed within our legal system, but the challenges of implementation must not be underestimated.

By learning from other jurisdictions and by building on the progress we have made through the Divorce Act and the Judges Act, we can shape this bill to be both just and effective and to move toward ensuring that all Canadians can live free from the fear and oppression of coercive control.

Let us, together, send this bill to committee. Thank you.