Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I am rising as well to speak at second reading to Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures).

I feel like saying: it’s about time! Whether in terms of criminalizing sexualized deepfakes or creating offences to better protect children from a range of harms, the government is playing catch-up on issues that Europe and Australia have already addressed through legislation.

I’m relieved that the federal government is tackling the issue of coercive control, which unfortunately precedes femicides all too often. At this point, I want to pay tribute to former NDP MPs Laurel Collins and Randall Garrison, who were the first to introduce private members’ bills in the House of Commons on coercive control. I sponsored Bill C-332 in the Senate in 2024. It died on the Order Paper following prorogation.

Women’s support groups have long known that a vast array of coercive control behaviours exist apart from physical abuse or even, in the worst cases, femicide.

In Quebec, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale has been working extensively over the past five years on coercive control, training more than 6,200 professionals in the police, judicial and health sectors because, even in the absence of legislation, raising awareness of coercive control can help professionals identify women in distress.

Let’s also not forget that the number of charges relating to breaches of bail conditions by individuals accused of domestic violence has almost tripled in the past eight years in Quebec alone. This means that the alleged victims, women, are not safe.

Given these circumstances, I’m surprised that the Minister of Justice has not taken into account the amendment proposed by the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. The ombudsperson suggested that the prosecution take all reasonable steps to inform victims when their alleged assailant is released. It seems to me that this is absolutely essential in a bill that is intended to better protect victims. Quebec has found an original way of keeping victims informed through crime victim support centres, but this is not the case elsewhere in the country.

There are a few things that concern me about the wording of Bill C-16. Rather than retaining the term “coercive control,” which clearly defined the issue that Bill C-332 sought to address, the government chose to go back to referring to this offence as “controlling or coercive conduct.” It is the addition of the word “or” that concerns me, because that means that controlling, but not coercive, behaviour toward an intimate partner would be sufficient grounds for a charge.

However, during the House of Commons study, experts and women’s groups indicated that men often accuse their partners of wanting to control everything, including the schedule, the children’s activities and the running of the household. However, this type of control, which can occur in a dysfunctional relationship or when the mother has custody of the children, is not the same as coercive control.

I also want to point out, as others have, that the term “femicide” is not defined in the body of the bill, whereas the summary of Bill C-16 indicates that the Criminal Code is being amended to provide that murder, known as “femicide” when committed against a female person, is murder in the first degree.

Unfortunately, the contents of the summary doesn’t have force of law. Clause 25 refers to femicide but doesn’t define the term. Does this mean that a man could be a victim of femicide? That would make no sense. So why is the term not defined? Femicide is when a woman is killed because she is a woman, like what happened during the Polytechnique tragedy in Montreal.

Furthermore, sexual deepfakes are a scourge as much for women as for minors. According to one U.S. study, one in two young persons have used a strip site or app. La Presse recently reported that one Quebec victim named Sarah has suffered from anxiety ever since a deepfake showing her naked at the age of 13 made the rounds at her school. Sharing such material is already a criminal offence and considered “child sexual exploitation material.” According to experts, however, more needs to be done. The European Union has already committed to banning the tools used to make sexual deepfakes.

Another issue not addressed in Bill C-16 is the prompt removal of intimate images from the internet. At present, it requires a court order. By comparison, Quebec is once again leading the way in civil law by establishing an online and accessible procedure for urgently taking down intimate images of anyone over the age of 14.

Let’s return to coercive control. Some groups are concerned that this new offence could backfire on women trying to protect their children from domestic violence. Others believe that the concept of coercive control is too broad and risks being challenged or misinterpreted.

These criticisms are legitimate, and discussions must take place with the communities most affected before Bill C-16 comes into force. A two-year transition period is provided for the offence of coercive control to come into force, which is reasonable.

I would add that there are ways to minimize the risk of errors. Firstly, everyone agrees that the key to success lies in raising public awareness and training professionals who come into contact with victims to effectively identify coercive control. For example, this will require more time for police officers and the development of new, longer and more detailed questionnaires for those filing complaints.

According to Karine Barrette, a project manager at the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, the experience in Scotland shows that, when the dynamics and patterns of coercive control are well understood, prosecutors and police find it easier to prove coercive control than isolated incidents of physical violence. When people understand what coercive control is, they are better able to identify who the main attacker is, including when there are intersecting complaints by both partners.

It seems that, in Great Britain at least, the offence of coercive control hasn’t backfired against the victims so far.

In closing, according to Professor Carmen Gill, an expert on this issue, the criminalization of coercive control is essential. She had this to say:

It is important to reinforce women’s safety. 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.

What we don’t want anymore is for victims of coercive control to avoid seeking help because they believe that what they’re going through isn’t that serious or doesn’t break the law.

We also want to make sure that these women are taken seriously when they bring a complaint even though they have no bruises.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the courage of the survivors of these horrendous crimes. I am thinking today of Miriane Bergeron in particular.

It is high time we helped them by strengthening our laws.