Bill C-332

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of exercising coercive control of an intimate partner by engaging in a pattern of conduct that consists of any combination, or any repeated instances, of any of the following acts: using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence against certain persons, coercing or attempting to coerce the intimate partner to engage in sexual activity or engaging in other conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe that their safety, or the safety of a person known to them, is threatened.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Karine Barrette]

In our opinion, it is important that the sentence reflect not only the consequences of these actions on the victims and on the women's lives, but also their objective seriousness.

Stalking is one of the tactics, one of the manifestations of coercive control. So, we simply find it logical that the maximum sentence should be at least ten years, and not five years as currently provided for in Bill C‑332.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Bill C‑332 terminology is not the same as the definition of “intimate partner” found in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

Do you think this could cause confusion?

[Karine Barrette]

Thank you very much for the question.

Indeed, that's one of the amendments we'd like to see in Bill C-332. In particular, we want the two-year time limit set out in the bill to be removed. We're not even proposing that the period be increased, because in reality, there's no time limit on domestic violence following a separation. We've heard of many cases where victims are subjected to violence over many years, even decades, after a separation.

The Criminal Code already sets out time limitations, and we'll leave it up to the prosecutors. However, there's no need to impose a two-year period, because it wouldn't reflect victims' experiences.

[Prof. Jennifer Koshan]

Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

Yes, another concern is with respect to the wording of Bill C-332 and its focus on the “significant impact” on the complainant, which means its interpretation in the bill will very much rely on the complainant's testimony, which is potentially retraumatizing.

We also have concerns with the “best interests” defence in proposed subsection 264.01(5). This defence is also subject to manipulation by abusers and can reinforce myths and stereotypes about supposedly benevolent domestic violence, which may adversely impact disabled survivors especially.

Thank you.

[Professor Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you very much for the invitation to provide input on Bill C-332.

I'm joining you this morning from Treaty 7 territory here in Mohkinstsis, which is the traditional territory of the Blackfoot peoples.

I am speaking on my own behalf this morning, but some colleagues and I did file a submission with the Department of Justice for its study of coercive control in October of 2023. My co-authors are Janet Mosher, Wanda Wiegers and Shushanna Harris. I'm relying on that submission for my remarks this morning.

We argue that it is crucial for all actors in the legal system to gain a nuanced, contextual and intersectional understanding of coercive control to be able to, for example, support risk assessments and safety planning. However, we do not support the criminalization of coercive control in Bill C-332 because of problems with the current legal treatment of intimate partner violence.

We identify several concerns. I'll focus on three sets of those concerns today.

First are concerns about the current criminal legal system's handling of intimate partner violence. The current focus of the criminal law is on incidents of abuse—for example, assault—in which the seriousness of the incident is often tied to physical injury. Embedding an understanding of coercive control, which focuses on patterns rather than on incidents of abuse, poses significant challenges for police, prosecutors and judges.

Legal actors may also fail to recognize the range of coercive and controlling tactics that are influenced by systemic racism, colonialism and other systems of oppression. For example, immigration status can be used as a tool of abuse.

However, the current treatment of intimate partner violence by the criminal legal system and its actors raises concerns about their ability to gain this sort of nuanced understanding. For example, police continue to lay dual charges in intimate partner violence cases, with Black, racialized and indigenous women being disproportionately criminalized.

These problems and broader issues with systemic racism and colonialism have led many women to turn away from the criminal legal system. As I argued before this committee in 2021, we can no longer call these “unintended consequences” because we know the likelihood that they will occur.

Our second set of concerns is with respect to how coercive control is being addressed in the family law system. We're currently reviewing cases under the Divorce Act amendments from 2021, and our early review suggests several concerns.

Family law courts are struggling to understand coercive control and continue to approach allegations on an incident-focused basis. Like the criminal legal system, family courts also characterize intimate partner violence as mutual in many cases, which may minimize the harms of the violence to women and children.

Family courts have also characterized women's attempts to protect their children from violence as amounting to coercive control itself. Given the willingness of family courts to accept allegations of so-called parental alienation, this feeds into potential findings of coercive control against mothers, who risk being criminalized or facing adverse parenting outcomes.

These are examples of perpetrators manipulating the legal system against the real victims of coercive control. Unfortunately, courts are sometimes persuaded by these types of arguments because of the ongoing influence of myths and stereotypes about intimate partner violence and its victims, which is again of heightened concern for women experiencing intersecting inequalities. For example, women are often wrongly accused of making false allegations of intimate partner violence to gain a so-called upper hand in family law proceedings.

If coercive control were criminalized, yet difficult to prove, that would likely feed into these assumptions and work against women and children in parenting disputes as well as undermine their safety.

It's also important to note that coercive control is defined differently in the proposed criminal amendments from the way it is defined in the Divorce Act, which could lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Then our third set of concerns is with respect to Bill C-332 specifically.

The provision has no explicit connection to intimate partner violence. The prohibited conduct is not defined, and it's unclear how many repetitions of behaviour are required. This vagueness is susceptible—

[Karine Barrette, Lawyer and Project Manager, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

The societal implications are that criminalization would demonstrate that this socially unacceptable behaviour needs to be taken seriously. Although physical violence and femicides are universally condemned, all too often, non-physical intimate partner violence continues to be normalized and trivialized. However, the vast majority of women availing themselves of services for victims of domestic violence have suffered from coercive control, including the use of multiple methods to scare, isolate and control them, in addition to abuse and threats.

Criminalizing coercive control would constitute a major step forward for human rights, namely a woman's right to safety, dignity, autonomy and freedom.

Adding coercive control to the Criminal Code has the potential to ensure not only that intervention is more consistent with the lived experience of victims, but also that it takes place earlier.

Although coercive control is at the core of domestic violence, the current lack of legislative tools to convict the perpetrators leaves the justice system with very few legal levers and tools to take effective action in such situations. During our training sessions, many police officers said that they were aware of or had witnessed situations of concern involving victims who'd been isolated, terrorized or humiliated by their partners. However, the officers were unable to take legal action, in the absence of an offence covering such behaviour. These situations fall into a legal loophole, as a result.

Criminalizing coercive control would allow the legal system to take into account the context in which domestic violence occurs and the history of those dynamics, at any stage in the process, from the moment the police get involved through to parole.

Finally, since coercive control is an important predictor of homicide, creating a new offence would provide another effective tool to help break the cycle of violence earlier and ensure an adequate assessment of how dangerous a domestic violence situation is, at any time in the process.

We support the introduction in the Criminal Code of a new offence for coercive control; however, we believe that this change is insufficient on its own. Additional measures, such as training for all stakeholders, be they police officers, prosecutors or judges, is essential. Public awareness is also essential, along with other measures, which we can speak to later.

We hope that Bill C-332 will be passed, but we would like it to be accompanied by a government bill setting out funding conditions for adjustment measures.

[Pamela Cross, Advocacy Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children]

Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you. We provided our brief, and I hope you've all had an opportunity to take a look at that because it elaborates on the points I'm going to make very briefly here this morning.

Luke’s Place works with women in Ontario who have been subjected to intimate partner abuse. We do this through both the delivery of direct services to those who are involved with the family law system and engagement in system-change work.

While we acknowledge that there are a number of reasons to think criminalizing coercive control could have positive outcomes, we believe that the problems with criminalization are greater than the potential benefits.

Over the past 40 years, we’ve seen the many ways in which the criminal law has failed survivors of intimate partner violence. Despite the many legal interventions and initiatives, IPV, including lethal violence, remains a serious social problem in this country. While we absolutely need to find ways to validate the experiences of those subjected to coercive control, we don't think creating a criminal offence is the best way to do this. As with any law reform, criminalizing coercive control will have an impact beyond the criminal law itself. In particular, the intersections between criminal and family law are so deep that it's not possible to make changes to one without impacting the other.

We are also concerned, based on the negative consequences that have flowed from Canada’s long-standing mandatory charging policies, that a new criminal offence of coercive control could likewise lead to women being inappropriately charged, which would have disastrous impacts, including on their family law cases.

With respect to Bill C-332 specifically, we have three concerns.

First, coercively controlling behaviours are insidious, subtle and often invisible to anyone outside the relationship. What constitutes coercive control is different from one relationship to another. It builds, with one incident leading to another and then another. Only when all of them are examined in totality can the pattern of abuse be recognized—by the survivor herself, as well as by outsiders. For this reason, the bill needs a clear and inclusive definition of the prohibited behaviours and what constitutes repeated or continuous engagement if it's to be effective.

Second, it also requires a clear and inclusive definition of who it is intended to protect. We encourage you to consider the language used by Ontario’s domestic violence death review committee, which I'm happy to share in the question period.

Third, given the reality that abuse often continues long after separation, especially for women with children, the two-year time limitation should be removed.

What do we recommend?

First, we recommend that Parliament not move ahead with Bill C-332 at this time.

Second, we recommend following the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendation to establish an expert advisory group to examine whether and how criminal law could better address coercive control.

Third, we recommend providing training, with real accountability measures, for police to ensure that they understand the prevalence of IPV, including coercive control.

Fourth, we recommend developing new and mandatory education for Crowns and judges, with accountability measures.

Fifth, we recommend funding access to free independent legal advice for survivors of gender-based violence who are considering accessing the criminal system.

Sixth, we recommend creating a criminal court support worker program to work in collaboration with existing criminal court victim assistance programs.

Seventh, we recommend funding national stakeholder consultations and discussions about the appropriate use of transformative and restorative justice models as a response to gender-based violence, in addition to the existing criminal system.

Then, and only then, consider how the criminal law might need adaptation to respond effectively to coercive control, using a collaborative and consultative process with all stakeholders.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 96 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding controlling or coercive conduct. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

We have witnesses in the room and witnesses on Zoom, so for the benefit of everyone, let me take a minute to read some of the comments.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute it when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments must be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please used the “raise hand” function.

We have a substitute clerk today. I welcome you here today.

We have some substitute help as well. Welcome. We have others virtually.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I will now welcome our witnesses for our first panel.

Before we begin, I want to inform the committee that witnesses and members participating remotely in this meeting have completed sound tests.

We have three witnesses appearing in the first hour.

We will start with Pamela Cross, advocacy director at Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children.

Next, we have two representatives from the Regroupement des maisons des femmes victimes de violence conjugale. They are Karine Barrette, lawyer and project manager, and Louise Riendeau, who is jointly responsible for political affairs.

Finally, by video conference, we have Jennifer Koshan, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Calgary, appearing as an individual.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Each of the three of you has up to five minutes for your opening remarks.

Because we have witnesses and we have lots of members who want to ask really important and good questions, I will say in the beginning that if we terminate the one hour and you have not had an opportunity to say everything you wanted to—this goes for the members as well in posing their questions—or an opportunity to respond, we urge you to please send us in writing whatever you believe would also help this committee. I have to keep track of the time because we also have three witnesses in the second panel.

Thank you very much.

We'll start with Ms. Pamela Cross.

Ms. Cross, you have five minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Silverstone.

My next question is for both of you, but I'm not sure who's best placed to answer it.

According to section 5 of Bill C‑332, someone who is accused of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour could cite the defence that they acted in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed. For example, if you accuse your spouse of such conduct, they will say that they sincerely believed they were acting in your best interest by controlling this or that. You're going to tell me I'm exaggerating, and I agree.

The question that nags at me is this. Let's assume that the accused sincerely believed he was acting in the victim's best interest. In that case, doesn't section 5 open the door to the defence that the individual did not have criminal intent? Even if a person is accused of unacceptable behaviour, they may not have intended to commit a criminal act. Section 5 clearly states that it is a defence to claim that the person acted “in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed”.

Ms. Gill, what do you say to this possibility? Ms. Silverstone will be able to answer that question later.

[Andrea Silverstone, Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society]

Thank you very much.

As the CEO of Sagesse, which is an Alberta-based domestic abuse prevention and intervention organization, I've seen first-hand in thousands of cases the severe impact of domestic violence. All too often we see it in the media, like in the murder of five people, including three children, in Manitoba this past weekend, or the murder of a mother in Calgary after she dropped off her children at preschool. I see this overwhelming reality summarized in devastating detail in my work with the Canadian Femicide Observatory, and in many of these cases—in most of these cases—I see the heavy toll of coercive control.

At its heart, coercive control is a pattern of behaviour that removes personal agency. The victim cannot make decisions in their own best interests because they fear the repercussions from the person who's controlling them. The control is often low level and cumulative so the person experiencing it doubts themselves or that they are even experiencing abuse. This lack of understanding carries over to the people around them, who don't recognize the abuse as domestic abuse but gradually see the relationship they have with their loved ones erode.

If the victim recognizes that it is coercive control, there is about a 20% chance they will call the police, but even if they do, they find out that the abuse they're experiencing is not illegal and the justice system cannot protect them. The police can listen but they can't act. This lack of support comes at a time when support is most critical. Relationships involving coercive control have more frequent and severe violence that's less likely to desist. It's one of the best indicators of lethality. This increased danger makes legal intervention imperative.

Through pursuing my masters and now a doctorate in coercive control and in looking at promising practices from around the world, I know that criminalizing coercive control is a game-changer. When the justice system in the U.K. changed their working definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, calls to the police went up by 31%. All of a sudden, victims believed they were going to be heard and that the abuse they were experiencing would be addressed by the police and, by extension, the courts.

We can similarly change that trajectory for victims of abuse in Canada. Ninety-five per cent of abusive relationships include coercive control. If the police and the justice system can address coercive control criminally, then they can intervene to interrupt the escalation and frequency of abuse.

This law would do more, though, than just change our justice system. It would change how society views domestic abuse. It would foster a discourse through which all Canadians would understand that violence is much more than a black eye or a broken bone and that people stay in violent relationships because of the loss of their personal agency. It would destigmatize domestic abuse and allow us as a society to do a better job of addressing it.

Last, it would decrease the long-term burden on our health and justice systems, as the reality is that violence is very expensive. Back in 2009, the Government of Canada estimated the annual cost of domestic abuse to be $7.4 billion a year, which is about $220 per Canadian. This cost has no doubt escalated with normal inflation and increasing costs of the basics, like housing for those who are fleeing abuse.

For these and many other reasons, we support Bill C-332 as an essential measure to safeguard the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, as outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, this bill is not a magic wand that would immediately end the epidemic of domestic abuse. This law, like all laws, has its limitations.

First, the two-year time limit post-relationship is detailed in proposed paragraph 264.01(3)(c). Coercive control may continue far after the relationship ends, particularly in the case of tactics that use the legal system to control.

Second, the experiences of children aren't explicitly recognized and are only considered through the lens of harm done to the parent. On the other hand, for example, the domestic abuse bill in Scotland includes measures of aggravation in relation to a child.

Last, this law would not fix the structural issues that impact the provision of justice to equity-deserving groups. However, research on the application of coercive control laws in other jurisdictions can address many of these concerns. In a study of specific cases prosecuted under the coercive control legislation in the United Kingdom, Evan Stark noted that the law “was being correctly applied to historical patterns of abuse that included multiple elements of coercion and control”.

Research by Andy Myhill and others shows that if police are provided with screening tools that help ascertain the measures of control, the effect of the legislation in preventing domestic abuse across a plethora of groups is greatly enhanced. This means that to be effective, this law must be coupled with funding and a plan for training police, judges and Crown prosecutors to better understand coercive control. Organizations like mine, Sagesse, can help with that.

I want to close by thanking you for inviting me here today and for your careful consideration of this law. I think it's time to listen to the millions of Canadians who are impacted and to act immediately to protect them.

Thank you.

[Professor Carmen Gill, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to participate in this meeting on Bill C-332.

I recognize and respectfully acknowledge that I am speaking from the unceded traditional land of the Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick.

My research focuses on the police response to IPV, especially on coercive control. As such, I have conducted surveys with police officers on their perception of IPV and coercive control in New Brunswick but also across Canada. I have been able to hear a lot about how they view this particular issue and about the lack of response from different parts of the country.

We know that intimate partner violence is multi-dimensional in nature and encompasses numerous forms of violence. IPV is, unfortunately, seen as a one-time event, and we're failing to address the complexity of the issue involving repetitive tactics used by the abuser, which will include exploitation, manipulation, isolation and the micro-regulation of daily life, otherwise known as coercive control.

Violent behaviour does not necessarily involve physical violence or a single incident, but we really need to focus on the repeated and continuous patterns of behaviour that occur over a lengthy period of time. Regardless of when the violence starts and what it looks like, it is the abuser's way of maintaining control over his partner.

Since the Canadian criminal justice system primarily places emphasis on evidence of physical violence, first responders are to find evidence of such violence. Consequently, there is a neglect to question the context of the abuse and the harm caused within these situations, which results in coercive control being unaddressed or dismissed. It is almost impossible for a police officer to recognize the deprivation of rights to freedom, the obstruction of liberty and the dynamic of power and control when they are intervening.

The recognition of coercive control as an offence would finally be a recognition that power and control over an intimate partner is a crime against the person. This would allow those caught in abusive relationships to report when they are experiencing abuse, even if it's not physical violence. Increasing the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to the pattern of violence of non-physical forms will lead the police response to be less incident-focused and will reduce the misidentification of the victim-survivor as a primary aggressor.

Too often, victims of violence will not seek help because they believe that what they're experiencing is not serious enough. However, when they do, they are not taken seriously as it is difficult to determine how violence is occurring. It is important to reinforce women's safety, and it requires the state to assume responsibility for responding to coercive control, which we are currently failing to address. An offence of coercive control would clearly recognize the fact that IPV is a pattern of control and power over the victim and would legitimize victims' experiences. Such an offence may also prevent intimate partner homicide.

Of course, it is important to keep in mind that any changes in legislation have unintended consequences. However, they can be overcome with awareness, training and better knowledge of the issue. When considering the impact of the potential coercive control offence, it is imperative that its adoption and implementation be done in conjunction with the development of, for instance, risk assessment and training for frontline responders especially, such as police officers, who are responsible for making the determination of IPV as a crime. Of course, all judicial actors should be more aware of this particular issue.

Having said that, it is important to review Bill C-332 to ensure that it is as clear as possible. I may have some suggestions regarding the wording of the amendment, especially regarding the definition of “intimate partner” or the limitation of the two years post-separation, just to name a few.

Thank you.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Collins, thank you so much for being here with us this morning.

I thank you both for the work you have done on Bill C‑332.

Of course, as women, we understand very well the importance of putting laws such as this one in place, so that violence against women is eradicated or, at the very least, diminished.

In Quebec, 2,700 women have had access to centres for abused women, shelter resources. That's not counting the 1,900 children who were also sheltered. In addition, more than 25,000 people requested related services, such as counselling or accompaniment. So we can see that this problem is very widespread.

You used the definition of “dating partners”. Why don't you refer to the definition of “common-law partner” already in the Criminal Code under section 2?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for inviting me to speak to my bill, Bill C-332. It would criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour.

I want to express my deep gratitude to the members of this committee for the work you've done on this file, and to members from all parties for your support for this bill. We have a responsibility as members of Parliament to tackle gender-based violence, to tackle intimate partner violence and to work to end femicide.

I also want to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. It's important to note as we go into these discussions that indigenous people are over-represented in our criminal justice system and that indigenous women experience gender-based violence at unprecedented rates. They are disproportionately impacted by gender-based violence, and I think we all have a responsibility to keep working to address the ongoing genocide faced by indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Research shows that indigenous women, Black women, women of colour and 2SLGBTQ+ folks, people living with disabilities, people of lower incomes, newcomers and other marginalized groups are at higher risk of experiencing coercive and controlling behaviour. Providing paths for them to seek help and report and leave these situations is crucial if we want to support victims and survivors of intimate partner violence.

Fundamentally, this bill is about ensuring that the criminal justice system can better address domestic violence. We know that our current approach is not working. It does not adequately support victims and it doesn't adequately reflect how intimate partner violence actually occurs. This bill proposes to deal with patterns of behaviour. These patterns are ones that have a significant impact on a person in their relationship.

I spoke to the House about my personal connection to this bill. I witnessed my sister experience coercive and controlling behaviour and then physical intimate partner violence. I remember being so scared for her life. It would keep me up at night worrying.

As we're discussing this, I am thinking of Angie Sweeney from Sault Ste. Marie and the other victims who were killed by her boyfriend. They were children. I'm thinking about this past week in Manitoba and the woman, her children and her niece. I'm thinking about last month and the woman who was killed outside an elementary school. They could have been my sister, and they could, in the future, be your constituents or the people we know and love.

It is so important that we move this bill through the House quickly. Every six days, a woman in Canada dies from intimate partner violence. It's too much.

I urge this committee—and I believe in you—to do this work. I'm looking forward to the discussion. So much more needs to be done to tackle gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, and this is one important piece of the puzzle.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 95 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 15, 2023. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I can confirm that all sound tests have been done.

For the first hour, we have with us Laurel Collins, the member of Parliament for Victoria and sponsor of Bill C-332.

Welcome to the committee. You are the only witness for the first hour. You have five minutes to present, if you have opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions from members.

Criminal Code

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, everyone in the House should feel the urgency and the necessity of tackling intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. As has been said, every six days in Canada, a woman is killed from intimate partner violence. This fact is not new, yet the Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, have not addressed it adequately. New Democrats refuse to stand idly by while countless individuals, primarily women and girls, face physical and psychological trauma and fear for their lives on a daily basis.

Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are not just private matters; they are systemic issues rooted deeply in ingrained inequalities and power imbalances in Canada. It is women, especially those from marginalized communities, who experience the worst of this violence.

We also know that individuals with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by this kind of violence. People with disabilities experience higher levels of intimate partner violence, and they face unique barriers to accessing support and escaping abusive situations. As the NDP critic for disability and inclusion, too many times I hear from residents who say that there is not enough research done on this, that there is not enough data on this and that there is not enough investment from the government in understanding the impact of domestic violence on persons with disabilities. Therefore, I encourage the government to invest in more research on violence against persons with disabilities, all genders.

I also want to note that indigenous women face higher levels of violence and that the current government has failed to meaningfully tackle the horrific levels of violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2 people. The Liberal government could immediately address some of that violence by investing in housing.

In 2019, the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre presented a report called “Red Women Rising” at the Metro Vancouver indigenous relations committee. The presenter said that no woman should be homeless on her own land. That really stuck with me, and I hope the Liberals will make the investments needed to ensure that every single indigenous woman and every single indigenous person has a home to call their own.

We cannot achieve an equitable and just society until we address the underlying structures that enable and perpetuate this kind of violence. As a New Democrat, I am committed to dismantling these systems of oppression and creating a society where everyone lives free from violence. All New Democrats are committed to that. A society where everyone has a home and has access to full and universal health care and pharmacare is also something the current Liberal government needs to move on immediately.

I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, frontline organizations and advocates who helped to make Bill C-332 a possibility. I also want to thank my colleagues: the MP for Victoria, for bringing this important piece of legislation forward; and the MP for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his work on criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour. We would not be here without the commitment of those people.

Coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of abuse that so many people, especially women, have experienced and that many are experiencing today, living in fear in their own homes. It is a form of domestic violence that, rather than a single instance, is a repeated pattern of behaviour by the perpetrator. This pattern often includes physical violence and sexual violence, but in many instances, it starts with other types of abuse, like humiliation, threats and attempts to take away the person's support systems and independence. Often, that means limiting transportation options, like taking car keys or intentionally damaging vehicles, and also controlling their access to communication, like taking or breaking cellphones. It also often involves limiting access to bank accounts, passports and immigration documents.

We know that 95% of people who report physical abuse also report coercive control; they correlate. We need women and girls to know what these abusive red flags are and to know what this kind of abusive behaviour is and that it is unacceptable. It has terrible impacts on the person's mental health. It often means they live in fear of violence all the time. Too frequently, it ends in tragedy.

These stories are all too common. Coercive control is not only a serious issue on its own but also so often it is precursor to physical violence. This is an opportunity to stop physical harm before it happens.

I want to take a moment here to recognize an organization called BOLT Safety Society, a youth-funded, not-for-profit, building safer and equitable communities. I have known the women in this organization for many years. I am happy to say that my office in Port Moody—Coquitlam is called a safe hub. It is a place where women and gender-diverse residents can come and get information about support groups in our community and also to get a wellness kit, if they need it.

I want to thank BOLT Safety for their work, and I want to thank them for raising the issue with young women and diverse genders of what coercive and controlling behaviour looks like. Coercive control is one of the most common risk factors for femicide, even in cases where there were no instances of physical violence before the murder.

Passing this legislation gives victims and police the tools they need to prevent some of the most tragic examples of intimate partner violence. It is time we said, “enough is enough”. Years ago, the justice committee recommended criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour in Canada, but the Liberal government, despite its claims to be feminist, has not acted. It continues to delay and disappoint.

All parties should listen to survivors, listen to frontline organizations, make sure we support those who experience this kind of abuse and give victims the tools they need to leave the situation.

I am urging every member in the House to take immediate action to protect women and victims of intimate partner violence, and to support this important bill. This is one important step in tackling gender-based violence and working to eradicate intimate partner violence from our communities forever.