:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 120 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines written on the updated cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
I'd also like to remind all members of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.
Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or on Zoom.
Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that we have Madeleine back in the room. We didn't appropriately say goodbye to Madeleine when she moved on to another committee.
:
Thank you, Madeleine. You were fantastic in welcoming me and then guiding me through my first little while as chair.
Now we welcome Tina. Welcome aboard. I think we're in good hands, so thank you very much.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, November 27, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on coercive behaviour.
I have a trigger warning before we welcome our witnesses. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and coercive control. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If you feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk.
For all witnesses and members of Parliament, it is important to recognize that these are very difficult discussions, so let's try to be as compassionate as we can in our conversations.
At this point, it's my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
In the room, from the Coalition of Families Victims of Post-Separation Abuse, we have Julie Rioux. Thank you.
Joining us by video conference from Little Warriors, we also have Wanda Polzin-Holman, clinical director.
From the Safe Centre of Peel, we have Shelina Jeshani, director of strategic partnerships and collaboration, also joining us by video conference.
From the Women's Habitat of Etobicoke, we have Carla Neto, executive director, joining us by video conference.
You will each have five minutes for opening remarks, followed by rounds of questions.
Ms. Rioux, we will begin with you. We'll allow five minutes for your comments. Thank you.
The Coalition of Families Victims of Post-Separation Abuse is composed of survivors, along with allies such as lawyers, medical professionals and mental health professionals. Our mission is to give survivors a voice, as we felt unheard.
Today we want Canadians and this committee to know that leaving does not stop the abuse. In fact, it often escalates it. Coercive control is the gateway to domestic abuse, post-separation abuse, parental alienation allegations and legal abuse, and at times it ends in femicide and filicide.
Our social and judicial professionals and institutions are often leveraged by abusers to continue to perpetuate abuse. At times, these professionals are complicit.
Femicide occurs every two and a half days in Canada, and 62% of perpetrators were either a current or former partner.
[Translation]
In the name of youth protection and judicial independence, the Charter rights of families are violated.
[English]
I'd like to start with an example in Atlantic Canada.
A father has been convicted of raping the mother. Child protective services confirmed the abuse of all four children by the father. Child protection services removed its supervision services, resulting in the father's criminal undertakings being modified. However, supervision remained at the mother's request, despite pressure from the family court.
Meanwhile, the perpetrator is requesting spousal support and fifty-fifty parenting time at the family court trial, and he will likely be incarcerated at the time of trial.
The victim, a health professional who regularly sees victims of domestic violence, worries about recommending that women leave an abuse situation, as she is cognizant that leaving the relationship to protect herself means she may not be able to protect her children.
In Quebec, the programme sociojudiciaire is co-authored and managed by the Quebec youth court judges and the DPJ. It states that protective parents, usually the mothers, exhibit alienating behaviours since they often have a personality disorder or mental health problems. This same document states that alienation is a type of psychological abuse, which they refer to as
[Translation]
a “severe separation conflict” or a “loyalty conflict.”
[English]
Thus, survivors are faced with systemic discrimination and with judicial bias about mental health. For example, a father is charged with four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of sexual assault. The mother loses custody as she is seen as attacking the father and is labelled as “alienating” due to the children disclosing the abuse to police. A five-day criminal trial occurs. In case of conviction, the DPJ is planning an alternative placement as the mother is unsuitable as she continues to maintain that the father is dangerous.
Let's be clear: These “attacks” they're speaking about are the mother going to police and testifying in criminal court. Cases like this are rampant. They are further complicated as they are seized by Quebec youth court, and the Quebec Court of Appeal does not hear appeals from parents. Children placed in youth centres, whose intent is to improve their lives, are routinely confined to cell-like concrete isolation rooms and abused by staff. When girls run away, they are strip-searched upon their return. Our children are not convicted felons, yet they are being treated as such.
In Ontario, a mom discovered evidence that her teen son was being sex trafficked in foster care. She brought the evidence to police and CAS. In retaliation, CAS accused the mom of sex trafficking her younger children and cut off her parenting time, yet the police laid charges and convicted the person of drugging and assaulting her son. This mom has video evidence of fentanyl on the table, with dad with the kids nearby, and dad's girlfriend shooting up, along with countless videos taken by concerned neighbours.
Also in Ontario, there is an issue with Superior Court judges, as they are routinely ordering custody reversals due to alienation allegations, and ordering reunification therapy without consent and reunification camps. The camps occur in Ontario, but children are also sent to the U.S.A. This violates charter rights and the Canada Health Act as they pertain to consent to medical treatment and the child's right to have a say, as per the UN declaration of rights.
In western Canada, a father maintained fifty-fifty custody after being charged with assault. He had strangled the mother while the baby was in her arms. He pleaded to a lesser charge. He continues to have unsupervised access and has continued his teaching career.
Clearly, courts are not prioritizing the child's or the mother's right to safety under section 7 of the charter.
In conclusion, many women feel they will only be free once murdered by their abuser. The voices of too many children are being silenced by death. Despite jurisdictional challenges, we implore the House of Commons and the government to make legislative changes to prioritize children and victim safety, along with stronger implementation of the charter.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Dr. Wanda Polzin-Holman, and I'm the clinical director at Little Warriors. On behalf of the vulnerable children and caregivers we work with, I want to thank the committee for providing the opportunity to participate in this important study. Within my testimony today, I will focus on Little Warriors' perspectives and on the problem of coercive control, the need for reforms and ways to better protect survivors.
Little Warriors is a not-for-profit national charitable organization focused on the awareness, prevention and treatment of child sexual abuse. Since 2008, our team at our centre outside Sherwood Park, Alberta, has created programs that have transformed the lives of thousands of children, adolescents and families from across Canada who have experienced child sexual abuse.
Little Warriors' evidence-based, trauma-informed treatment program at the Be Brave Ranch is the only program of its kind to offer intensive, specialized, multimodal treatment to children between the ages of 8 to 17 who have been sexually abused and are survivors, as well as their caregivers. As the needs in this area of child sexual abuse unfortunately continue to grow, we also have an evidence-based educational workshop, Prevent It!, that was created in conjunction with researchers at the University of Alberta with the aim to teach adults about child sexual abuse.
We continue to research areas of mental health, trauma treatment, addiction and adverse childhood experiences as these issues relate to child sexual abuse. At Little Warriors, we work with various stakeholders as well as a scientific and clinical council to ensure healthy outcomes for the children and families with whom we work.
We consistently demonstrate high, reliable change and recovery rates, highlighted by our ongoing third party independent outcome measurements. Research relating to our programs demonstrates a social return of an investment of 11:1 as this crosses systems of child and family services, education, health, crisis prevention and criminal justice. Research highlights that upwards of one in four girls and one in six boys experience an unwanted sexual act before they turn 18, and recent reports indicate that over the past five years, online sexual luring of Canadian children is up 815%.
We define issues around coercion in the context of child sexual abuse, obviously highlighting that children cannot provide consent for any type of online or in-person sexual abuse.
Coercion occurs when children are encouraged or manipulated and forced to do something for sexual access. Of note, this coercion occurs in the hands of adults as well as other children and youth at times. At Little Warriors, we unfortunately see children who've been harmed through intrusive, exploitative and traumatic sexual activities. We see this in various forms, including online, where there is a lack of clear controls and where sites encourage children to become involved with potential offenders and perpetrators. This happens in person as well; research shows that 90%-plus of the time, their offender is someone who is well-known to them.
Some recommendations that we would like to have considered are barrier-free supports across the continuum of care for children who have been sexually abused. Ironically, clinical supports are sometimes more easily accessed for offenders than for survivors.
A second recommendation is revisiting laws that continue to protect offenders, such as non-disclosure agreements and minimal sentencing. Short sentences without accountability often allow for reoffending, and data shows that approximately 29% of child sexual abuse offenders are reconvicted of a new offence in adult court within five years of their original conviction.
As well, we recommend laws that require accountability for social media and online predatory websites.
Fourth is an increased earlier intervention relating to awareness of child sexual abuse and coercion as well as human trafficking of children and youth. More awareness and support are needed for marginalized individuals and communities where there are higher percentages of people impacted.
Fifth is for the government and parliamentarians to ensure that survivors of coercion have full access to support through victim services programs. This can be done by making it easier for individuals to donate to charitable organizations and by providing financial support to organizations—like Little Warriors—that invest in prevention efforts and work with survivors of coercive abuse.
Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any questions, and I look forward to working with all of you to address these concerns.
:
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I would like to convey my gratitude to the standing committee for this invitation and to the survivors who have shared their stories courageously in the hope of creating a safer country for all girls and women.
We know the data on the prevalence of intimate partner violence in our country is overwhelming. We know this is a phenomenon that is under-reported. The number of victims is far greater than we know, especially those who experience coercive control.
My name is Shelina Jeshani and I am the director of the Safe Centre of Peel, which is located in the region of Peel in Ontario. The Safe Centre is an innovative, evidence-based and best-practice model of how a community can work together to respond and provide a safety net for victims of IPV. The centre has been in operation since 2011 because of the commitment of 24 community partners, led by Catholic Family Services Peel-Dufferin. Together they provide an integrated and coordinated service delivery model.
In 2008, our community partners began discussing how we needed to respond differently to IPV in our community. We couldn't continue to work in silos, duplicate services and watch while vulnerable women, with their children, tried to navigate systems we had created. Survivors told us they did not want to have to repeat their stories over and over. They did not want to be told they couldn't bring their children with them to these different services. They often gave up trying to travel from place to place and navigate a complex system they didn't understand. They didn't know where to go for help and what was available for them. We were losing our early intervention opportunities. We heard that it was particularly difficult for victims who didn't speak the language, were new Canadians, had low to no finances, had young children, and had virtually no support system. The Safe Centre of Peel recognizes that cross-sectoral collaboration among human services is vital in responding to victims and survivors of IPV.
We see survivors coming forward with various experiences of abuse and violence. One of the most subtle forms we see is coercive control. This is behaviour that attempts to dominate, intimidate and isolate victims. It involves psychological, emotional and financial manipulation. This can play out as constant tracking and surveillance, threats, isolating victims from their friends and family, and controlling finances and resources. It can be masked by comments such as, “I don't want to share you with anyone else” or, “I will manage the money and let you know how much you can spend.”
At first, the various attempts to maintain control are disguised by the perpetrator's perceived overwhelming worry and concern for the victim, or by their increased dependency on having their emotional needs met by the victim. We hear women sharing how signs of coercive control sometimes began subtly in the early part of their relationship, where he would start exhibiting jealousy and having an over-dependence on the victim to cater to his emotional needs, therefore slowly beginning to isolate and control her.
We know that forms of coercive control increase as the perpetrator feels less and less in control. Research shows that when there is coercive control in relationships, there is a high risk of it escalating to physical violence, including severe assaults and even homicide. For many victims, coercive control creates an environment of fear and entrapment that can quickly deteriorate into more overt forms of abuse.
The effects of coercive control are profound, causing psychological trauma, loss of autonomy and long-term mental health issues for survivors. We cannot forget the impact that living in a home with this type of control and abuse has on children and youth.
The following are some of our recommendations.
There is a need for public awareness campaigns to educate Canadians about coercive control and its impacts. The goal should be to raise awareness to support early intervention and prevention.
Invest in specialized services for victims of coercive control, including access to legal support, safe housing, trauma-informed counselling and financial assistance.
Integrated hubs like the Safe Centre of Peel that have a number of sectors working together should be adequately resourced to support the unique needs of victims experiencing non-physical forms of abuse, in order to provide early intervention support.
Law enforcement and justice need more training on understanding the holistic nature of the dynamics of IPV, which includes coercive control.
Finally, further research and more data on the prevalence of coercive control and effectiveness of various interventions are needed.
In conclusion, recognizing coercive control early and intervening effectively is crucial to preventing potential escalation to physical violence, thereby saving lives. This is where we need the strategy and the investment.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the work of the Safe Centre of Peel and for your commitment to address gender-based violence.
I will be happy to take any questions.
:
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Carla Neto. I appear before this committee representing Women's Habitat of Etobicoke, a feminist multiservice organization serving victims and survivors of gender-based violence and their children since 1978.
We operate in two distinct service locations: a 25-bed emergency shelter for women and children escaping violence and an outreach centre that works with impacted women, many of whom are still living with abusive partners.
It would be remiss of me if I didn't mention that in recent years we have seen an increase in women escaping intimate partner violence as well as human trafficking. Both locations support women to assess risk, develop safety plans, and offer trauma-informed crisis and ongoing counselling, referrals and advocacy to essential services, such as housing, health care, legal services, and parenting programs, as well as prevention and leadership programming for boys and girls.
We thank you for inviting us to appear as part of this panel of witnesses. We commend you on your efforts to further study this matter of coercive behaviour.
Historically, much emphasis has been placed on physically aggressive acts in intimate partner violence. In doing so, we lack the broader context of relationships and miss the opportunity to see the role and impact of non-physical violence. Although we can't say that coercive control and behaviour will always eventually result in physical abuse, it is fair to say that in our experience in working with victims and survivors of abuse, all physical abuse was preceded by and will continue to include coercive behaviour.
Coercive behaviour occurs within the context of complex dynamics in intimate partner relationships when one partner exerts power and control over the other. Coercive behaviour is action taken to force, manipulate or intimidate someone into doing something against their will. It is harder to identify by family and friends, and it involves the use of threats, pressure and force to control another person's actions. Unlike overt physical violence, coercive behaviour can be subtle and often involves emotional, psychological or social manipulation. That is the reason we often regard coercive controlling behaviour as being invisible chains that restrain victims of both intimate partner violence and human trafficking.
Some victims and survivors of coercive controlling behaviour describe their experiences as living under a constant, never-ending threat. Others describe feeling like captives trapped in plain sight. Those of us who are survivors of war recognize some of the same psychological effects and impacts in the victims and survivors of coercive controlling behaviour.
Coercive controlling behaviour in intimate partner violence has two main components: the coercion and the control. Coercion can be the use of force or threats of physical aggression to alter the victim's behaviour. Control is used to compel obedience by the victim by monopolizing vital resources, dictating preferred choices, limiting options and depriving the victim of essential supports needed to exercise a level of independence. Some of the examples include threats of intimidation, isolation, manipulation, monitoring, surveillance, control of finances and emotional abuse.
Coercive behaviour is often used in abusive relationships, workplaces and other power dynamics where the goal is to dominate and reduce the victim's autonomy.
Finally, we assert that strategies and efforts to address coercive behaviour require a comprehensive multi-level approach that involves various stakeholders, including individuals, institutions and communities. These would include legal protections and enforcement, whereby governments and lawmakers create and strengthen laws to criminalize coercive behaviour; education and public awareness campaigns; supports for non-profit organizations and NGOs; and schools and educational institutions where students can be taught about healthy relationships.
There should also be meaningful funding for services supporting victims and survivors; training for professionals; perpetrator rehabilitation and accountability mechanisms; financial support for victims and survivors; empowerment of communities like religious leaders, friends, families and neighbours; and developing technology and digital solutions that keep victims protected from surveillance, tracking and harassment.
It involves promoting research and developing policy on coercive behaviour to understand its effects and develop evidence-based interventions.
Once again, I express our thanks and appreciation for your invitation to participate in this very important conversation.
I too am available to answer questions. Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Colleagues, it's good to see you again after the summer break.
It's always chilling information. The news is also catching up to us when it comes to violence against women. I took personal notes on the subject. In the last 10 years, violent crime has gone up; sexual assault has gone up; murders have gone up; violent gun crime has gone up. In addition, the number of murders linked to street gangs has exploded. We live in a world where violence is absolutely extraordinary, in the sense that it is beyond comprehension.
Ms. Rioux, since the committee began this study, I find myself somewhat stunned by examples we hear of women—it quite often concerns women—who are victims of violence. Even when they have evidence, videos and witnesses, at the end of the day, they are the ones who bear the blame and are accused of being responsible for these situations.
You mentioned that the courts of appeal are rejecting appeals from lower courts. There is an ignorance or lack of recognition of what is happening in women's lives. We don't understand the problems. Ultimately, women are simply not believed.
How do you explain that? Which of the legislative changes you mentioned should be put forward?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for your important testimony.
This is a very important subject. Today we are discussing coercive behaviour against survivors. I want to thank all of you for the work you're doing on the ground.
I'm from Peel and, Ms. Jeshani, I say thank you. You are leading that team, and the work you are doing.... This is not the first time you're here, Ms. Jeshani. I know that in 2022 we invited you to provide testimony on intimate partner and domestic violence in Canada. In 2023 we all visited your centre during another study, a study on human trafficking. You talked about isolating the victim and controlling finances, and your organizations are giving support to women in Peel, with multiple services under one roof.
Can you talk about how you, with these multiple services, are helping women? How are you helping survivors with trauma-informed support?
:
Thank you, Sonia. It's nice to see you again as well.
The Safe Centre of Peel works on those principles of trauma-informed care. We listened to survivors who told us that they didn't know how to navigate systems, and so we took over the responsibility of navigating those systems. Survivors tell us they don't want to repeat their story over and over again and that they need someone to hold their hand through this journey—not just at the crisis stage, but throughout the journey—and so our partnership and collaboration really works from those principles of providing that integrated care so that we have a diverse number of partners that provide culturally sensitive care, and language capacity if needed, so that people who come into our centre go through one intake. They tell their story once. We're all trained in the same area of risk assessment, so we're all speaking the same language of risk.
We also know that when people come to us, they may be coming for a lot of different reasons and needs, but it gives us an opportunity to introduce other services and supports that are available and that they may not have even known about. This is the early intervention opportunity to start to dismantle some of the things they're facing. Especially for women who have been living with coercive control, when there's been a loss of self-esteem and an increase of mental distress, it's helping women understand that this is not in their head; it is actually happening to them, and deliberately, intentionally happening to them.
Through these partnerships we're able to come together, have a case conference, wrap around and really be more upstream in some of our work so that we can provide that early intervention opportunity before things escalate even further.
Public awareness is key. It means having messages out there in terms of what coercive control is, what it looks like and what supports are available to help people through that.
We have very much identified in society what physical violence looks like, the various different forms of physical violence, but we don't talk about coercive control. We don't talk about coercive control to our youth as they're entering into and putting their feet into relationships. We're not trying to help them define what is healthy. When your boyfriend is tracking you and saying he just wants to make sure you're safe, what's the impact of that? What behaviour is happening, and how is your autonomy being impacted by that? Those are some of those early stages.
We also know that children and youth grow up in homes where there is violence and coercive violence. These are learned behaviours. If we don't have the opportunity to interrupt that, if we don't have the opportunity to teach boys from an early age about power balance in relationships, about the way we treat each other, about how we ask for what we need and how we respect each other in relationships, we go back to what we've seen. We go back to what we've learned.
We know that there are many things that influence unhealthy relationships outside the home as well. There is an early opportunity to address that. Many of our partners here in Peel region are part of our child witness program, which is called The HEAL Network. We work with kids right in the school system. We partner with our education partners in how we can do this and how we can get in there earlier.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank our four witnesses for being here.
This study is troubling, as I see at every meeting we hold on the subject. Current events regularly remind us how important our study on coercive control is.
Why, last May, had there already been more femicides in 2024 than in the whole of 2023, in Quebec?
The first femicide took place in the region I represent as MP. On August 31, I offered my condolences to the family at a golf tournament. The family had been offered a golf tournament to benefit the Maison Alice-Desmarais, located in the riding of Shefford, more precisely in Granby. The Maison Alice-Desmarais helps women who are victims of violence. It was very moving to meet the family of the victim, this young woman from my riding who was killed.
Next Friday evening, at the invitation of the Maison Alice-Desmarais, but, above all, of women's groups, I will be taking part in a march. It's 2024 and we're still obliged to hold activities like this to highlight the fact that women are being killed and that there's still far too much violence against women.
I'll stop here, but I could talk about this for a very long time. I have many questions for the witnesses.
Ms. Jeshani, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that we need to recognize coercive control. Where does that start? What exactly do you mean by “recognize coercive control”? Are you aiming for recognition on the criminal side, so that the system includes more tools for intervention?
:
When I say that, I'm referring to raising the awareness of what coercive control is and what it looks like.
We need to really invest in being able to name those behaviours, as well as naming the impact coercive control can have on women. We know there are many women who do not come forward because they say, “He didn't hit me” or “He didn't push me,” yet in these conditions that they're living under, they feel that they don't have autonomy, they don't have any power, their self esteem has been impacted and they feel they can't even manage because they continue to be humiliated and told they don't have the right or the intellect to lead certain parts of their lives.
That kind of coercive control is long term and damaging to their psychological well-being, and we need to be able to talk about this. We know that coercive control, however it looks, is usually the foundation before we start to see physical violence, including even extreme forms of physical violence like strangulation, which is also on the rise in our country.
In Peel Region right now, which includes Brampton and Mississauga, we see one strangulation per day. That is what is reported to police, and we know that not all women go to police.
We also know the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention tells us the statistic is that a woman is 750% more likely to be killed by that man who attempts to strangle her, and the strangulation isn't the first step: The first steps are the coercive control tactics, and once that person feels they are not effective anymore, you see the physical violence coming into the situation.
:
Before legal protections, to add to what Shelina has mentioned, it's the recognition that it exists. If the police are not trained in recognizing coercive control, they won't proceed in ways that will protect the victim and the survivor, so when we get to our court systems, if the courts don't recognize coercive control, then there is no legal protection.
That's why I'd like to take a step back. In fact, I think what we need to do is a mind shift in this country. We need to recognize that violence against women exists.
For example, when a police officer comes to an incident of domestic violence, it is important that the woman be believed. If an officer comes in and the perpetrator—or the husband, in this case—says, “Oh, she's not doing well”, “She's crazy” or “She has a mental health issue”, and the police officer is okay with that and does not proceed, we won't have legal protection, because that police officer won't act quickly. That's the issue.
:
I think it's a really important question, and I agree that it is important to have sexual education taught to children.
One of the pieces that I think is really important is to look at the age at which we're starting to teach aspects of sexual education and wellness. I know that one of the other panellists was talking about providing this to children and teens when they're in junior high school or high school. I actually think it's very important to talk about sexual education and wellness at an even earlier age, for a few reasons, including to ensure that children at a very young age understand bodily autonomy.
Still, within many of our families and communities there are not the connections around telling a child to go give grandpa a hug. It's sort of forced upon a child. It's also important to give children the proper language about their body so that they can identify when abuses are taking place. Often children giving testimony don't have the right language to talk about their body and what has happened in a situation of child sexual abuse, and that creates a lack of clarity for the justice system to be able to make decisions.
I would say that it's incredibly important to do this within schools, but also to support families so that they have the right language and to support caregivers across communities so they are able to do that.
My next question is for you, Madam Rioux.
You put forward a petition that called for the recognition of parental alienation. This is interesting, because one of the areas of concern around implementing legislation around coercive control is that there still isn't enough understanding about parental alienation and how parental alienation is sometimes used against the parent who for very good reasons has concerns about the other parent.
Very quickly, your petition acknowledges the injustice and human rights violations currently facilitated in Canada's family courts, recognizing the court itself is complicit in its continued abuse of women and children. Can you expand a little bit about that, about parental alienation and the danger?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm not disappointed. I'm actually very disgusted.
I'm going to bring up two situations. In 1997, there was a killing of four children and their mother. The father shot them all, then shot himself. Before he did that, he set the house on fire.
In 2020, Kari's law was killed.
The reason I'm bringing both cases up is that they're so far apart. It doesn't seem like anything has changed in this country. Children are not being listened to. I'm very disgusted by this fact.
I think that, one, the judges are not listening to the children and, two, we are failing the system, as women, by not listening to them. More importantly, how many of these criminals—I call them criminals because they're abusing our children and women—are out on bail right now while women are running scared?
Anyone can answer that question.
Does anyone have the answer?
Go ahead, Julie.
All of our witnesses are excellent today. I just want thank you all for your time and your attention. I'm going to stick with you, though, Julie.
I'm sorry, but I'm seized with the problem of parental alienation. We know that it's happening here in Canada; I've spoken to victims. There's a story from August 31, just a few days ago, out of Denver. The headline is, "Former Aurora cop charged with raping daughter remains free as mom is sent to jail”. That's not Aurora, Ontario.
This is one of those cases of the kind you talked about. Dad is accused of raping his daughters, and he still goes free and is able to fight for custody of his two sons. When the mother protests, she's thrown in jail because she's opposed to this reunification therapy. I've heard from victims of this, and it doesn't sound like therapy to me; it sounds more like torture, and they're forced to take it. I find the whole thing appalling.
I want to go back to your opening statement. I'm not sure who you were quoting, but you said that parental alienation is “usually the mothers” and it's “psychological abuse”. Maybe you can fill that in a little. From what I understand, parental alienation isn't actually a thing. It shouldn't be a term. We shouldn't be using it in court at all. It's just a flag; it's not a real thing.
Can you please comment on that?
:
The quote is actually from a training manual for workers for
[Translation]
the Quebec youth protection branch.
[English]
I'm seeing similar language being used in CAS in Ontario.
It's not therapy, because for you to have mental health therapy, you have to consent, and the children aren't consenting. Also, you're not gaslighted in therapy. These children go to reunification therapy, to RT, and they're told to forget about what their father did to them. They didn't understand; it didn't happen. The therapists actually get mad if they do.
In one case that I know of, the judge reversed custody; they cut off contact completely. I find it very ironic that for an estrangement, the solution is to estrange the child from the parent that they feel close to. One, you're damaging them psychologically, because you're breaking their effective link with their main parent. Two, you're telling them that what they lived isn't true and that they are to get over it. Three, you're forcing them into contact and custody with somebody that they have a genuine fear of. Even if the estrangement was not justified, it is still damaging to force somebody to see someone else against their will.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Once again, I thank the witnesses, who enrich our thinking on this extremely important study.
The criminalization of coercive control is a request made by Quebec to Ottawa. It was studied as part of the report entitled “Rebuilding Trust”. Since the Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction, the Quebec government is asking the federal government to add coercive control to it.
Beyond this aspect, having had discussions with elected officials at the National Assembly, I know that the issue of online hate is also extremely worrying. There is a direct link between violence against women and online hate. How is it that we tolerate so much hate from groups like “incels”, or involuntary celibates, or influencers, who promote misogyny and who, as we can see, risk taking us backwards in terms of the image we perpetuate of women and this tolerance of violence against women—indeed, it goes as far as that. It's absolutely incredible.
Ms. Polzin‑Holman, you touched on the issue of social networks. How do you see the link between online hatred and misogyny, and violence against women in 2024?
Ms. Rioux, I want to go back to parental alienation. I'll give you an example.
In Manitoba, they have a program called For the Sake of the Children. They had this years ago. I don't think it was a bad program, because sometimes parents can be toxic and divorce, but sometimes there are cases in which parents are raising concerns, not to their children but to others, and there are real concerns in place.
Parental alienation is still in place, and it's still something that can be used in decision-making by courts. What kind of threat does it pose to individuals experiencing coercive abuse to be afraid to leave a situation? Let's say there's a violent parent. They know they're going to be able to look after a child even if they say something because of parental alienation. How does that, in reverse, impact on an individual's ability to leave a relationship?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much to our witnesses today. This is a very tough topic. Thank you for the work that you do and the vicarious trauma that you have to experience every day. I say that to the people on the front line who are not doing okay. As my colleague Dominique said earlier, as all of these numbers have gone up, so has the responsibility on you to be on the front line to help all of these folks. I really do appreciate what you do.
This study is about coercive control and what we need to do as a government to talk about it, or change policy, or implement policy. I want to keep that at the forefront.
I'll go to the Safe Centre of Peel, and I believe it's Shelina.
Is it you who said there's a strangulation every single day?
:
One thing I'm seeing and hearing in my own community is that police officers are responding, but then their hands are tied because of the justice system. They try to help, but then they're sort of left with a miss because the man or whoever they've picked up is walking free.
There's a case in Newfoundland and Labrador that I spoke of over the summer. I don't know if you guys are familiar with this case, but it was pretty horrific. The young woman who was killed by her husband had five children. The women detectives who were talking to me about this.... There was so much pain and suffering. The consequences of coercive control are so much bigger than what we think. It's the front line, like yourselves, that is also taking this home. They said that they knew this was going to happen. They literally knew.
I can see all of you nodding your heads. You're seeing these strangulations escalate. It doesn't get better, as everyone here today has said.
One thing that I think is going to be very important for this study is an actual definition of coercive control. I think how we define this is going to be really key in moving forward.
I'm going to turn to Dr. Polzin-Holman from Little Warriors.
You guys do absolutely phenomenal work. What you do is actually life-changing work. This stat you said today of an 815% increase of online sexual luring of children is just awful. The sextortion that's happening and the human trafficking.... I've spoken with your organization about parents human trafficking their children, which has been around for a long time.
How would you define coercive control? If not everybody can answer it, could you submit to the committee what you would like to see as a definition? If I could get everybody to do that, I think that would be very valuable for us.
This is the other question I would ask Dr. Polzin-Holman. You've said you rely a lot on donations. Your organization does very well. You have very wonderful, gracious donors to help with a lot of the programming. How have you seen that the economy impacts donations?
:
First of all, thank you for the kind comments and for the ongoing support and awareness.
In terms of your first question on coercive control, I would be happy to take some time and thoughtfully put something forward.
With regard to the second question, we are definitely seeing a decrease in charitable donations being made. I know that some changes have occurred that have impacted us, but I also think our economy has definitely had an impact.
Little Warriors has been around since 2008. Up until this past year, we have had very little support other than community supporters and businesses providing financial supports for our children and teens to come. My hope is there are some ways to provide more access in a barrier-free way for children and teens for programs like ours and programs like those being represented today.
:
Thank you to all of the witnesses here today.
I have a number of questions. I'm not sure I'll get through all of them, but the amount of information you've given us is really incredible.
I would like to start with you, Julie, because some of the things you're describing, to be honest, defy logic. I think every one of us at the table is scratching our head and asking how this could happen, especially in our court system.
I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit. You said something in the beginning about people being sent to the United States and about an industry growing around this.
Could you talk about that?
My concern is that it sounds like the courts might be unwittingly facilitating coercive control without even realizing they're actually doing so.
:
You do not. We're already about 30 seconds over, so we'll wrap up at that.
In saying that, this has been some pretty alarming testimony.
I would like to go into a third round. I have been somewhat lenient with some of the time, so for our members in the room and for our witnesses, I will be firm and tight on the minutes moving forward. We'll have five minutes, five minutes, two and a half, two and a half, five and five.
We'll start with Dominique. You have five minutes.
:
I'll get back to my topic.
Ms. Rioux, I'm very interested in parental alienation.
Madam Chair, let me know 30 seconds before the end of my time, because I have a question for Ms. Jeshani.
With regard to reunification therapy and reunification camps, if I understood Ms. Vandenbeld's question correctly, it's not necessarily the result of a court order.
Did I understand correctly, or am I mistaken?
:
Thank you, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here with us to answer some questions on this important topic.
You have all expressed the great concern with coercive control. We all agree that it's an extremely important thing we need to look at. It's the first step in an abusive relationship, so it could definitely escalate and become violent and much worse, and it has major psychological impacts on women and children.
Does everyone on the panel today agree that coercive control needs to be criminalized? You can all respond.
I see nodding everywhere.
From what I understand and from the conversation that has been had so far, currently it is not seen or recognized as an actual issue, so if somebody does report it to the police, it's just not considered and nothing is done about it.
We have spoken about parental alienation as well. From what I've heard now, psychologists are the ones who kind of... Can you clarify?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't know if I'll have another turn, but I'm going to address you, Ms. Rioux. I've been questioning one witness per round of questioning, and you're next.
Since we're talking about the situation in Quebec, I'd like to point out that, in addition to the people who support the criminalization of coercive control, beyond the political examples I gave earlier, there are also community groups. Just last week, I met with a group of community organizations. In Quebec, they are mainly funded by the Quebec health and social services system to help victims.
We really need to see violence against women as an issue requiring a continuum of services. So, recognizing coercive control as a crime is important, so that women can say to themselves that there's a chance that what they've been subjected to will be recognized, right up to the point of accompaniment, to help them heal. We also need financial resources to help them. So it's important to invest in our health care system so that we can help organizations in the field to support victims.
Can you talk about the importance of ensuring this continuum of services and making these investments in our health care system, beyond the legal system?
:
Thank you so much, Chair.
I'm really interested in this reunification therapy, because, for example, in the riding I represent—certainly a part of the riding that will be added after the next election—we have the highest number of kids in child welfare and many families requiring reunification therapy for various reasons, such as the impacts of colonization on families.
I'm interested in hearing another perspective on that, so I wanted to ask you, Madam Polzin-Holman, for your perspective on reunification therapy. My concern is that sometimes there are lots of grey areas. It's kind of like parental alienation and questions about issues around that. Could you expand on that? What are your thoughts?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to direct my questions to Ms. Polzin-Holman. I hope I pronounced that properly. Excuse me if I didn't.
You stated earlier that 29% reoffend after they are released, and you mentioned that 90% of offenders are known to children. One in four girls and one in six boys are exposed to sexual assault before the age of 18.
I need to ask you this question because I'm really concerned about this. Sexual assaults are up 75% and sexual violations against children are up 119% since Trudeau took power, and yesterday Toronto police arrested a man while he was already out on bail after allegedly sexually assaulting three women at a York University campus.
Can you please help me understand? When these individuals are being let out to continually abuse women, how do we change that so that we can protect the women and the children?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd also like to thank the four witnesses today. I think this has given us a lot of alarming information, no doubt, but it will also enrich our study.
I'll put my question to Ms. Rioux, to Ms. Jeshani, and then to the other witnesses, if we have time.
I'd like to understand one thing better. It's often said that the police's hands are tied. They say it's a problem associated with the justice system. The justice system is very vast. It's often said that the administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction, but at the federal level, we manage the Criminal Code as well as the family courts.
When we talk about reforming the bail system, that's also under provincial jurisdiction. So I'd like to understand one thing better. I'd like to address both Ms. Rioux and Ms. Jeshani. As for definitions, we've talked about definitions of parental alienation, reunification therapy and, obviously, coercive control.
How can we clearly define the role of the federal government in family courts?
Can you try to explain the federal and provincial roles in this area?
I put the question first to Ms. Rioux and Ms. Jeshani, and then to Ms. Polzin‑Holman and Ms. Neto.
:
Thank you so much, Chair.
Thanks again to everyone here for this discussion on coercive control and bringing forward some recommendations that will hopefully save lives.
I want to talk with Wanda.
I'm sorry. I'm distracted by what Shelina just said, because what I've seen is.... My brain is going in two different directions. There's just so much information here.
You just talked about the police bringing a social worker with them. What I've seen in my ride-alongs with the police is that police have become social workers. They are not even able to do their real job of enforcing the law anymore, because it's just become this vicious cycle.
I was fortunate enough to visit the Toba Centre. Have any of you ever worked with the Toba Centre?
Wanda, do you have any intake from the Toba Centre?
:
Okay, thank you. I was hoping you would say that.
It's a brilliant centre in what they do with the children. They are able to do court from inside this beautiful building, this beautiful space. They are doing those kinds of things.
I'll go back to what you said earlier in one of your answers about the generational trauma. With regard to education, and let's go upstream. I think we've talked a little bit about intervention and giving a definition to coercive control and what we need to change in the justice system and how to ensure that these criminals aren't out on bail, etc.
If we can go to the prevention end of things and the generational trauma, one of the big things I'm hearing from guards in the jail system is that they don't have the training or that the programming isn't in place to rehabilitate men when they do go into the system. They're often coming out worse than when they went in. They're not learning why they are violent. They're not learning why they are abusive. They're not getting better.
Julie is looking at me too. I'm open to anybody who wants to answer this.
I guess I'm talking about the prevention end of it. What would you add in the recommendations for this report for prevention and ensuring we understand healthy relationships and break generational trauma?
There's no time. What I'm suggesting is that we submit to you some of our proposals around prevention.
I concur with my colleagues. Definitely, anything will be used, but it is important for coercive control to be recognized.
Also, please remember that we have a family law system and criminal system that don't always talk.
Let's also talk about the stigmatization of communities. That's why they don't report to the police. There is an assumption that abuse only happens in some communities or to “those people”. Abuse happens in every culture, in every human culture.
I would welcome the opportunity to submit something in written form.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Once again, thank you to the witnesses.
Now that I've had the opportunity to speak to each witness, I'm going to ask a question that's for everyone.
In recent months, I took part in a meeting that focused on violence against women. This meeting was organized by women's groups. Representatives from community groups, elected municipal officials, municipal police forces and the Sûreté du Québec, as well as representatives from the office of the Quebec Minister of Public Security took part. As you can see, everyone has to get involved.
I'd like to talk about the issue of coercive control, specifically. At the meeting, I heard a lot about Bill . This federal bill opened the door to including coercive control. Of course, all the parties have spoken out on this one, with some reservations.
Are you aware of this bill?
What improvements would you make to the next bill that will deal with the criminalization of coercive control?