FEWO Committee Meeting

     I call this meeting to order.

    Welcome to meeting 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, according to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person and remotely, using Zoom.

     I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and the witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. For those who are on Zoom, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, you may choose, at the bottom of your screen, the appropriate channel: French, English or the floor, which gives you both. To those in the room, you all know how to use your earpieces. Keep them away from the mic so that we don't hurt the ears of our translators. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Thank you for that co-operation.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 15, 2025, the committee will resume its study of section 810 of the Criminal Code and women's safety.

    Before we welcome our witnesses, I'd like to provide a trigger warning. We'll be discussing violence against women. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If any members feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk. For all witnesses and members of Parliament, it's important to recognize that these are difficult discussions, so let's all be compassionate in our conversations.

    I'd like to welcome our witnesses. By video conference, from the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, we have Deepa Mattoo, who is the executive director and a lawyer.

     From the Crime Victims Assistance Centres Network, or CAVAC, we welcome Jackie Huet, director general for the Estrie region, and Karine Gagnon, organizational support and development coordinator.

    We also welcome Laio Auger, lieutenant detective with the Domestic Violence Unit, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.

    Also with us today, from the Waterloo Regional Police Service, we have Jennifer Davis, deputy chief, investigations and operational supports.

    Welcome, everyone.

    We will begin with opening statements from each organization, and you will see that I have these very helpful cards. When you have one minute left in your five minutes, you will see the yellow card. If you get to 30 seconds, you will see the red card and then I will gently cut you off.

    We start with Ms. Mattoo. You have the floor for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

     Thank you for this invitation for the Barbara Schlifer Commemorative Clinic to contribute to this very important study. For over 40 years, the Schlifer clinic has worked at the intersection of gender-based violence, law and systemic advocacy. Each year, we support thousands of gender-diverse people and women who have experienced violence. We support them in the areas of legal representation, counselling and interpretation. This frontline experience gives us a unique lens on how section 810 peace bonds and bail conditions operate in practice and where they fall short in ensuring safety.

    Section 810 responses are intended as a preventive tool for individuals who fear harm. In theory, they should be vital for survivors who fear future violence. In reality, their effectiveness is undermined by systemic gaps. Survivors face lengthy delays and complex processes without guaranteed legal supports. Conditions often fail to address coercive control and technology-facilitated abuse. Breaches are common, yet responses are slow and inconsistent. Peace bonds typically last up to one year, with some exceptions, while danger often persists much longer.

    Survivors may be misidentified as aggressors due to trauma responses. It could be freezing, panic or defensive actions. Mandatory charging and incident-based policing often overlook patterns of abuse, leading to misidentification of primary aggressors. These practices create jurigenic harm, which is harm caused by the legal process itself, where survivors seeking protection are retraumatized or criminalized by the very systems that are meant to safeguard them. A trauma-informed approach must recognize lived experiences, systemic barriers and patterns, not just isolated incidents. It must ensure that judicial actors are trained to avoid reinforcing harms.

    Standard bail conditions, such as no-contact orders or geographic restrictions, do not prevent digital stalking, financial abuse or indirect intimidation. Survivors need conditions that reflect the reality of coercive control.

    In international models, we have some lessons that we can learn. In the U.K. there are domestic abuse protection orders that use multi-agency risk assessments. In Scotland there is bail supervision with mandatory social worker engagement. In Australia and New Zealand there is integrated bail support linking offenders to housing and mental health services. Examples include bans on digital contact, restriction on financial access, mandatory counselling and multi-agency risk assessments.

    We urge the committee to adopt reforms that move beyond punitive models and embrace trauma-informed, survivor-centred approaches. We plead for an integration of social infrastructure. Link conditions to housing, child care and income support. We ask for investment in community-based, trauma-informed monitoring and wraparound services. Use dynamic, survivor-centric risk assessment frameworks, such as Schlifer clinic's risk identification and safety assessment, or RISA, a tool that centres survivors' experiences and dynamic factors. Guarantee universal legal aid and proactive information sharing. We need training of judges, police and prosecutors to recognize risk and the complexity of gender-based violence to prevent jurigenic harm.

    Peace bonds and bail conditions cannot operate in isolation. They must be part of a coordinated safety strategy that addresses systemic inequities and builds a social infrastructure of protection. Survivors deserve more than symbolic measures. They need and deserve a system that acts decisively to prevent harm.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much.

    I now give the floor to the Crime Victims Assistance Centres Network.

    Ms. Gagnon, you have five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    We want to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women for giving us the opportunity to speak to them today.

    The Crime Victim Assistance Centres Network brings together the 17 CAVACs in the province of Quebec, located in all administrative regions. Their mission is to provide psychosocial and post-traumatic intervention services, as well as support throughout the socio-legal process, to all victims of crime, their loved ones and witnesses, in order to address the impact of crime.

    In addition, the CAVACs play a central role in the court specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence.

    All of the provisions or issues addressed in the committee's current study are generally analyzed in terms of the rights and freedoms of the perpetrators of violence. Any legislative amendments will be tested in court in light of these rights and freedoms.

    But what about the victims' rights and freedoms? Do they not enjoy the same rights and freedoms? Is there not a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that must be taken into consideration—

     Madam Chair, the interpreters are not able to interpret right now because the sound is cutting out.

    If you can, speak clearly and slowly. I think the interpreters are having a bit of trouble. I'll add to your time.

    You may continue.

    I apologize. Allow me to start over.

    However, what about the victims? Don't they have the same rights and freedoms? Shouldn't the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights be taken into consideration in this analysis? Isn't a victim who is incessantly hypervigilant because they do not know whether the perpetrator is complying with the conditions of their release deprived of their own freedom? What about a victim who loses their life at the hands of a perpetrator who has not complied with their conditions? In our opinion, the analytical framework should be reviewed to take into account that victims have protected rights too.

    With regard to section 810 of the Criminal Code, two specific cases can be addressed.

    First, conditions under section 810 may be imposed as a result of an agreement between the prosecution and the defence. Generally speaking, in Quebec, the victim discusses the matter with the prosecution before this measure is put forward. However, since the Jordan decision, this measure has been quite regularly considered to be a lesser evil than a stay of proceedings. The thinking is that, at least, conditions will be imposed for a period of one year to enhance the victim's safety.

    Second, police officers may refer the victim directly to court services at the courthouse in order to have conditions imposed under section 810. In those circumstances, victims often feel they need only sign a form allowing conditions to be imposed on the perpetrator who caused them harm, which is obviously not the case.

    In both cases, when conditions are imposed under section 810, several problems arise. First, the lack of risk assessment at the time of the order outlining the conditions and the ongoing assessment of these conditions during the period of application pose a problem. Next, this measure is limited in terms of its duration. Not to mention the fact that the measure leaves no trace in the perpetrator's record. In the event of non-compliance with the conditions, it should be possible to impose immediate detention or, at the very least, a reversal of the burden of proof. The perpetrator has already been given a chance, so they should have to demonstrate that they do not pose a risk when they deviate from the conditions with which they are required to comply.

    Now let's talk about mandatory minimum sentences.

    With regard to the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences, we can indeed question whether they actually are a deterrent. We can also question their effect on public confidence in the justice system, including whether victims feel a sense of justice.

    What is particularly important to us when it comes to sentencing is that the needs and realities of victims, their wishes, and the impact the crime has had on their lives are taken into consideration. There are mechanisms to ensure this consideration, but are they used effectively? Are they used systematically? Do victims systematically have access to the support they need to complete the victim impact statement?

    We also believe that these elements should take precedence over the other factors being assessed during sentencing. The victim's participation is essential to ensuring that appropriate sentences are imposed.

    Obviously, risk assessments should be systematic or, at the very least, should be able to be imposed by the court.

    We are also concerned about expanding the possibility of granting a suspended sentence in cases involving serious crimes, particularly involving sexual violence. On this regard, we come back once again to consideration of the victim's needs.

    Let's now address the issue of bail.

    As with the recourse provided for in section 810, cases of non-compliance with conditions are also common during bail, and the same problems arise.

    Let's now turn to the issue of coercive control.

    We are in favour of criminalizing coercive control. Adding this offence to the Criminal Code would make it possible to deal with violent situations as a whole.

    In Quebec, the guidelines set out by the director of criminal and penal prosecutions already allow coercive control to be taken into consideration, and police practice is evolving in this direction; however, we believe it is necessary to go further, to take official action and to add this to the Criminal Code as a tool for participants in the justice system.

    Adding this offence to the Criminal Code will not be a panacea. Following the criminalization of this type of offence, all participants in the justice system will have to undergo adequate training and will also need to have the necessary resources at their disposal.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Auger, you have the floor for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

     We are extremely grateful to be invited to testify before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

    The mandate of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, or SPVM, is to lead special investigations and focus on prevention in domestic violence cases. Our team was established in 2021 following a recommendation in the report on rebuilding trust, Rebâtir la confiance.

    Our team exclusively handles all applications under section 810 of the Criminal Code relating to domestic violence and filed with the director of criminal and penal prosecutions or DPCP, and the Montreal municipal court. We are a multidisciplinary team that prepares complete prosecution files, including applications under section 810, and provides long-term follow-up for victims, approximately every six months, and monitors compliance with conditions in certain specific cases.

    It is important to note here that the requests our team handles exclude any form of negotiation between the Crown and the defence during proceedings, commonly referred to as plea bargaining, which would result in orders under section 810. We are really talking here about applications under section 810 that are made at the outset, when there is no criminal offence, since, as you know, police officers are required to report incidents under the 1995 domestic violence intervention policy.

    Here are a few statistics to support the following points.

    On average, we make seven applications under section 810 per year, once the files have been analyzed. In other words, we receive approximately 45 applications from all neighbourhood police stations, or PDQs, and investigation centres. At the end of this analysis, seven applications are forwarded to the DPCP and the municipal court.

    At the DPCP, we have noticed a low authorization rate, which is mainly attributable to the average five-month wait for a decision. In comparison, at the Montreal municipal court, we have a very high authorization rate of approximately 70%, and the average wait for a decision is one week.

    Let me quickly explain the problems we noted.

    The consequences attributable to the long delay in obtaining authorization from the director of criminal and penal prosecutions mean that potential victims are left unprotected for several months while they wait. By the time the hearings take place, the facts are no longer current, which makes it difficult for judges to assess them during the hearings. In addition, this significantly reduces the likelihood of obtaining these orders. There is also a loss of confidence in the justice system among victims and an increase in the vulnerability of these same potential victims in the absence of any form of protection.

    I will quickly outline the measures provided for in section 810.03, which came into force in April 2025.

    In Quebec, it is unfortunately still impossible at this time to impose two of the prescribed conditions, namely the wearing of an electronic monitoring bracelet and participation in a support or treatment program. These two conditions would have been extremely effective in ensuring the protection of and a safety net for victims.

    I would like to highlight a second point regarding the measures provided for in section 810.03. As I mentioned earlier, the Montreal municipal court gives us very favourable wait times. However, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with applications provided for in section 810.03. Yet it is the court that offers the best wait times and is closest to the wishes of the specialized courts to ensure vertical prosecution, meaning, retaining the same Crown attorney from the authorization of the case to the laying of charges.

    In conclusion, given that the rate of victim disengagement at some point during the judicial process is approximately 50%, the measures provided for in section 810 are very important because they constitute a legal safety net to protect victims. Indeed, when there is disengagement, the parties still have the option of agreeing on orders under section 810. The use of section 810 is extremely important, but ways should be found to make it more accessible and effective, especially when it stems from an application made at the outset.

    Finally, I would like to quickly point out that I agree with the criminalization of coercive control. This would be a significant step toward strengthening the safety net for victims and ensuring greater security when charges are brought in such cases.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Ms. Auger.

     Now we go to Ms. Davis.

     You have the floor for five minutes.

    I would remind everyone to speak slowly and clearly. We're having a few technical problems with the interpreters.

     Thank you.

    Thank you.

    I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to discuss section 810 of the Criminal Code and provide some insights and recommendations from a policing perspective.

    If you were to ask whether section 810 orders are effective, the response would be that they serve as a useful tool for preventing harm, provide a mechanism for enforcement and impose consequences when conditions are violated. However, they do not provide a guarantee or prevent future violence. They are most effective for lower-risk situations where clear, specific and enforceable conditions are imposed and where other assurances are in place, but less so where a matter has already passed the precipice of concern and stronger measures are required.

     The authority provided by section 810 closely reflects the principles of early intervention, empowering a justice system to identify and address potential risks before they escalate into more serious harm. Multi-agency initiatives providing wraparound supports to those experiencing family or intimate partner violence, IPV, are necessary to increase the effectiveness of section 810 orders.

     The first of its kind in Canada, the Family Violence Project in Waterloo region is one example that exemplifies the benefits of early intervention by focusing on prevention and education, not just crisis response. Early intervention teams offer outreach, education, safety planning and referrals to supports, including counselling, legal aid, housing, etc., where an individual may be diverted through a peace bond process.

     Since its inception in 2021, we have seen the number of individuals in Waterloo rise from 94 to over 198 in 2025 in terms of those participating in this program subject to peace bond conditions, underscoring the need for increased resources and funding in this area. Our recommendation is that to strengthen the effectiveness of section 810 orders, we need to invest in early intervention programs and multi-agency hub models that provide comprehensive supports for individuals. Supporting individuals with timely access to services significantly increases the likelihood of successful outcomes.

     Only recently have we seen a shift to the consistent application of section 810 peace bonds in IPV situations. These orders provide the authority needed to impose conditions that extend beyond just general safety measures. This is especially necessary in IPV cases where a desire exists to impose conditions that include the surrendering of firearms, also triggering a process for a possession and acquisition licence, PAL, suspension or revocation.

     According to the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, the presence of firearms can escalate IPV to homicide, especially where prior concerns have been documented. The committee also identified that between 2003 and 2023, a firearm was used in 24.7% of the IP homicides reviewed.

    As enacted in April 2025, former Bill C-21 implemented strategies to mitigate gun violence associated with intimate partner violence, directly targeting these identified risks.

    To strengthen the effectiveness of section 810 in all cases where an offender is known to possess firearms, it is imperative that the order mandate the immediate surrender of those firearms and automatically initiate a process for suspension or revocation of a defendant's PAL. This decisive action is essential to safeguard potential victims and prevent the escalation of intimate partner violence to lethal outcomes.

     Finally, I'd like to highlight the pattern of control often found in IPV situations and the effectiveness of section 810.03 orders in these matters specifically. Coercive control seeks to strip victims of their autonomy and decision-making ability. One significant benefit of a section 810.03 is the ability for anyone who fears for the victim to apply, not just the victim. This is especially important in situations where coercive control exists. Section 810.03 orders allow for a broader range of conditions and greater monitoring and oversight, recognizing the heightened level of risk that may be involved.

     A key concern, however, is that no one agency is formally tasked with monitoring individuals on peace bonds. This lack of formal supervision puts added pressure on police to enforce conditions, respond to breaches that rely heavily on victim reporting and manage individuals with limited monitoring tools such as GPS tracking, all with already strained resources.

     Bill C-332, which proposed amendments to the Criminal Code regarding coercive control in intimate partner relationships, aims to formally recognize coercive control as a criminal offence. This change would not only clarify the issues from a legal standpoint, but also would promote greater awareness and guide police and community organizations.

     Aside from section 810 orders, we need to reinforce a need for coercive control to be defined in the Criminal Code and formally reintroduce it at its previous legislative stage. Doing so would strengthen protection for victims by enabling proactive conditions and criminal accountability for offenders.

     These recommendations establish a solid foundation for preventing intimate partner violence and protecting those at risk.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much.

    Now we're going into our first series of questions. Each party gets six minutes.

    We'll start with Ms. Roberts.

    Thank you Madam Chair.

    Thank you to the witnesses. I also want to thank you for your service. What you're doing is remarkable, and you're protecting us.

    I'm from York region, and I want to give you some stats. Intimate partner violence crimes are up 59% from 2019 to 2024. Charges laid are up 11.66%. The number of people charged for failing to appear in court—this is just in York Region—is 700 people out of 824 charges. That leads me to be concerned, and I'm sure it does you.

    Deputy Chief, I want to acknowledge some stories that I've heard from families. Yesterday I met with Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Henderson-Bellman. I'm not sure if anyone remembers this story, but their daughter, 25-year-old Darian, was killed by her boyfriend. The man was charged with illegal firearms and repeat breaches, and he failed to appear multiple times.

    I'm sorry, I'm getting a little emotional because, when I heard the story from the mom and dad, I had tears in my eyes. This particular individual made this poor young woman suffer, and he started by shooting her in the eye. This is not the Canada that we live in.

    You emphasize the policies about section 810, but how can we strengthen them? We have options, but these options aren't working. They're not protecting women.

    What would you recommend in a situation when somebody's already breached their bail situation? Should they not still remain in jail?

    There are a couple of things I would probably highlight there.

    I do believe that the section 810 orders can play a role, but as I mentioned, they are not something that can be issued in isolation. We need to ensure that there is access to resources and that there are additional supports in place.

    The benefit of having early intervention teams is that they are monitoring and working with the offenders, defendants and victims in those cases. There are many cases when the defendant and the victim choose to stay together, so a section 810 order, especially ones where we can extend the duration of them beyond a year, are very useful in ensuring that, when supports are in place, we can also provide additional monitoring for that extended period of time, because it often takes a long time to work through some of those systems.

    One thing that we are seeing is that peace bonds are being issued maybe more frequently than we would like to see. There should be increased scrutiny on when we're using them to ensure the safety of victims. They should be used more sparingly. As I mentioned, with the number of people who are now participating in early intervention and who are abiding by peace bond conditions, monitoring them becomes very difficult as we continue to see more and more people who are on these peace bonds, so that's another challenge because, obviously, resourcing is required to do that.

    Yes, there are cases similar to what you just mentioned in that example when it should be a reverse onus offence. They should bear the responsibility of trying to prove why they should be released from custody and why the release would not create greater risk to either a victim or the public.

     I look at the parents of this young woman and the tragedy they have to go through, and I hear their comments that every day they wake up with the thought that their daughter's not there. They had to sit in court and listen to the testimony. This happened in 2020. Listening to the evidence—and I appreciate the fact that it doesn't come out until the court date—victimized them over and over again.

    They've spoken in many different police forums, and they've said that the police are doing the best they can, but they don't make the law; we do. We have to make sure that the law reflects the crime.

    How do I explain to these parents that we are here to ensure that no other woman has to go through this again? He breached his bail conditions, and now he's out again. The mother pleaded and said that had he not been out, her daughter would have been alive today.

    When you're being charged with an offence of that magnitude, do you agree that the person should not be allowed out? He had an illegal gun. He was charged. He breached his bail.

    Give a brief response please.

    I would say that's a difficult question for me to answer, just given the only information I have. I don't know what other steps, measures, conditions or supports were put in place at that time. We really have to look at each situation on the totality of its individual facts.

     Thank you very much.

    Now we're going to Ms. Khalid for six minutes.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for your very important testimony today.

     I'll start with Deputy Chief Davis.

    The enforcement of justice is a multilateral approach where the federal government may write the laws and the provincial government administers them with the help of regional governments and municipal governments. Can you please walk us through what that looks like for you as a deputy chief in your local area?

     I'll do my best to answer the question that I think you're asking.

    We have incredible support, locally, from our regional government. Intimate partner violence was declared an epidemic in our region. We have three cities and four townships, so it was also declared an epidemic in some of our municipalities and our townships as well, demonstrating a commitment to addressing the systemic issues that are found in intimate partner violence and gender-based violence cases.

    We receive substantial support from our regional government with respect to our family violence project. One of the priorities of our community safety and well-being plan in the region is addressing intimate partner violence. There has definitely been a commitment, regionally, for Waterloo region, specifically on addressing intimate partner violence and gender-based violence.

    Our family violence project was, as I mentioned, the first of its kind in Canada. It is based on the San Diego model. We have a hub model of multiple partners, including victim services, our sexual assault and domestic violence treatment team, the Waterloo Regional Police Service, Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region and a number of others. We work collaboratively, providing wraparound supports. We are very lucky to have this in our region. We receive some support from our region for this. We have a domestic violence planning table, as well, as part of the community safety well-being plan.

    We've been very blessed because since 2006 I feel that we're quite advanced in how we respond to and manage cases of intimate partner violence and domestic violence. We also have a dedicated domestic violence Crown. We consistently have good, open dialogue with our Crown's office and have support from our Crown as well.

    Thank you.

    I am trying to understand, though, how you work with the provincial government and with the federal government in order to achieve your objectives. I applaud the amazing work that you are doing with gender-based violence in your region. I know that across the country, other regions, like Peel Region, which is mine, have been doing a lot of wonderful things as well, such as the Safe Centre of Peel. How do you interact with the different levels of government, and where do the responsibilities lie?

     We interact with ROMA and with our with the regional councils. We also get a lot of support from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. They really advocate on behalf of all police agencies in Ontario. As well, I co-chair the crime prevention, community safety and well-being committee at the CACP. On a national level, we also have the CACP that can advocate as well. We've spoken in front of this committee before on coercive control. We take any opportunity that we can to engage and interact with government to try to advance some of our initiatives.

    Thank you.

    In your mind, what do you think the federal government can do to improve section 810?

    Most significantly, I do believe that we should be moving towards coercive control's being a criminal offence in the Criminal Code. In 2022, representatives from the CACP committee presented to this committee on why coercive control should be added to the Criminal Code. Most recently, in July 2025, the CACP endorsed a framework for how police respond to intimate partner violence involving coercive control. I think that is one thing that this committee could really do to help support and advance it: to have it brought back again as part of legislation.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Mattoo, you spoke about trauma and a trauma-informed response. What do you think the role of police in that trauma-informed response is, as they engage with our citizens?

    My biggest intervention on this many times in front of this committee and other committees has been that there needs to be a survivor-centric risk assessment done by the police services. We heard about this tragic case of Darian Henderson-Bellman. In that case also, I feel like the survivor's own sense of fear was not taken seriously by our police services. They focus so much on the person who has committed the crime, thinking about whether he will commit a crime again, what his situation is, what his life is like. There is much less focus on the survivor's own sense of fear and dynamic sense of fear, which evolves and changes every minute. I think that's where the biggest gap is in our police services. There is also a lack of understanding of the experiences of marginalized and racialized people, and people who don't speak English. I think that's where the big challenges are.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Larouche for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I thank the witnesses for joining us today.

    Your expertise is remarkable. Every day, you work with people who need support. Indeed, victims experience situations that are not necessarily easy and that can mean they have many questions.

    Ms. Gagnon, I will start with you.

    You referred to section 810 of the Criminal Code in your opening remarks, but can you tell us more? What do you see as the main problems with regard to the use of section 810?

    As we mentioned in our opening remarks, one of the problems is the duration of the measures provided for in section 810, which is relatively short. Ms. Davis also referred to this problem.

    Furthermore, there should be an ongoing risk assessment. When the conditions are not complied with, that is when the harm occurs; the condition has not been complied with. It would be important to have an ongoing risk assessment.

    Finally, as I mentioned, legislative changes in that regard are needed, but, when someone fails to comply with their conditions, they should have to demonstrate to the court that they still deserve to be released and not the opposite. In our opinion, the burden of proof should be reversed.

    I do not know whether my colleague Ms. Huet would like to add anything.

    There is also the fact that, unfortunately, section 810 is used to settle cases more quickly when there is concern that proceedings will be stayed under the Jordan decision. This should not, however, form the basis for its use in such cases.

    What has not been mentioned either is that it is often up to the victim to take the necessary steps themselves. However, for someone who has been a victim of domestic violence, for example, recalling the events and putting together a case to explain to the court why they fear for their safety is very complex. It is very complicated. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but in Quebec, victims are not entitled to legal aid to undertake this process. When this process is not triggered by the prosecution and the victim must begin the process themselves, this is another major problem.

    I understand, and I will take this question about the Jordan decision further, since you mentioned it.

    What adverse effects of the Jordan decision do you observe in domestic violence cases?

    The question is for Ms. Huet or Ms. Gagnon.

    Based on what we have observed, prosecutors are concerned about a stay of proceedings under the Jordan decision, so some cases will be resolved quickly through a guilty plea by the accused, or even through the imposition of conditions under section 810, even though this may not necessarily be what the victim wants. Prosecutors are under a lot of pressure when they fear a stay of proceedings, so sometimes the victim's wishes or needs are not taken into consideration.

    Prosecutors also feel a lot of pressure when there are delays in getting cases authorized. All kinds of legal strategies are put in place to try to get the case authorized as close as possible to the promise to appear deadline, for example, in order to try to save time. However, these strategies do not take into account the needs of victims.

    Would you like to add anything, Ms. Gagnon?

    I would like to point out that prosecutors often have the victim's safety in mind when they decide that, rather than risk having a stay of proceedings under the Jordan decision, it is better to use section 810 and at least impose certain conditions. However, was using section 810 the right solution, objectively speaking, given what the person had been through and the acts they were subjected to? In many situations, unfortunately, the answer is no. We understand very well why a prosecutor would ultimately opt for orders under section 810 in this type of situation. However, in many cases, this is unfortunately not the appropriate solution.

    Ultimately, ladies, would you say that the Jordan decision is causing cases to be dropped, putting victims at risk?

    Shouldn't we revisit the issue by proposing a bill to better regulate the Jordan decision? That way, in domestic violence cases and other cases, people would not have the Jordan decision hanging over their heads like a sword of Damocles.

    I recognize the merits of the Jordan decision. Indeed, excessively long proceedings must be avoided, so this decision serves a purpose.

    Rather than extending the allowable time frame, I think we should look at what is causing such delays and what is putting our prosecutors in this situation.

     Thank you.

    Now we're going into our second round.

    We will start with Ms. Cody for five minutes.

     Through you, Chair, my question is for the deputy chief.

    Peace bonds, under section 810 of the Criminal Code, can be an important tool, but survivors of coercion and abuse face real barriers. They often carry the burden of initiating the process, proving fear on reasonable grounds and navigating court, all while trying to stay safe. There's room to make this tool stronger and more survivor-focused.

    I've heard a lot of concerns about the short duration of peace bonds. A report on the findings of a community-based study conducted by Battered Women's Support Services recommends extending the duration of family law protection orders to two years for cases of intimate partner violence or gender-based violence, with the possibility of longer durations.

    Do you think changing the peace bonds from one year to a two-year maximum would be enough, or should there be a longer time frame? How do we better account for cumulative evidence of intimidation and stalking, incorporate the risk assessments for high-risk offenders and improve the data collection?

     That's a very loaded question. I might have to ask you to break it down a bit.

    Let's start with the change in the peace bonds from one year to two years maximum. Is that enough, or should we consider longer durations?

     I appreciate that, on average, a peace bond is 12 months, but it can be extended or reapplied for. There is value in having longer durations for peace bonds available when they are needed.

    As I mentioned earlier, especially in cases where an individual—a dependent victim—chooses to stay with their partner or, for some reason, there is something connecting them and keeping them together, and they need those additional supports in place, it can take an extended period of time to work through counselling, housing and financial stability, or to work through programs the offender may be going through as well, such as anger management. Being able to have an extended peace bond to cover that duration of time, especially when it's potentially being monitored through early intervention programs, would be of huge value.

    The second part of that question was about shifting the onus from the survivor to the offender. How do we better account for cumulative evidence of intimidation and stalking, incorporate these risk assessments for high-risk offenders and improve the data collection?

    That brings us back to the conversation we were having earlier on the reverse onus. I see value, especially when we're looking at repeat offenders and defendants who were previously charged and who may have demonstrated violence in the past towards a victim. There should be an onus on the defendant in those cases to demonstrate to the court why they should be released and why they will not continue to pose a risk to the safety of either the victim or the community at large. I would agree with the reverse onus comment and shifting the onus from the Crown to the defendant in those cases.

    With respect to the coercive control piece, I believe that being able to identify coercive control earlier helps us address and break the cycle of domestic violence earlier. I consider coercive control—whether it's psychological or financial—to be abuse. It's not physical abuse, but it is still abuse. Oftentimes, we don't identify or aren't able to identify what those signs of coercive control might be.

    There is value not only in education and training for police officers, who are often the first to come into contact with victims, but also in other agencies—I mentioned women's crisis services and victim services—that may be the first to come into contact with them to then work toward finding solutions. We find this especially in cases of new immigrants or refugees, those who are precariously housed or who may be living in remote areas, where they are financially dependent on their abuser.

     Being able to identify those signs and provide intervention and support earlier would be beneficial.

    Peace bonds related specifically to intimate partner violence and domestic violence may include a condition for the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device. In your opinion, are electronic monitoring devices—GPS tracking systems or the approach notification bracelets—effective tools in the context of intimate partner violence and domestic violence?

     My concern is that they provide a false sense of security. We have seen GPS monitoring exceed about 500% in Ontario. Locally, in the Waterloo region, the number of people we're monitoring with GPS has increased by 25%. When someone is found to potentially be breaching or their alarm has gone off, that's a call for service to the police. Depending on the prioritization of the call, there could be a delay in the response.

     We also know that there is a lot of manipulation of GPS and ankle bracelet monitoring going on. We have cases where individuals have taken a video of themselves with their surety, saying they're in the company of their surety, and they leave the house with them and do not return home for 30 days. We are never alerted to it. We can't do any follow-up on it. It then falls on the police to prove how long that person has been violating the terms of their ankle bracelet monitoring.

    I would be concerned that there are some cases where it's beneficial and someone is willing to abide by the conditions of it, but someone who wants to commit a crime against an intimate partner—stalk them or whatnot—is not going to be deterred by ankle bracelet monitoring.

     I'm sorry, that's the end of that time.

    Now we're going to go to Ms. Fancy for five minutes. I'll add a little bit of extra time; that was a great answer and I wanted to hear it.

    Thank you very much to all of the witnesses today.

    I have just one question in particular that I'm hoping to rotate through everybody. The preface to this is that I was an educator for almost 20 years as a high school math teacher and a high school administrator. I've dealt a lot, over the years, with kids who witness to domestic abuse.

    What can we do as a federal government to help better support kids? All of you today are navigators, in a sense, and sometimes we act as little silos where we're not communicating with each other. I really want to know how we best support our kids. The motion that we're discussing today is about women and youth, so in terms of our kids, what can we do better to help break those familial or generational abuse cycles?

    I'd like to start with Ms. Mattoo.

     I think one of the big pieces that we have alluded to in our recommendation is that we need to amend the Criminal Code to authorize courts to impose rehabilitative and supportive conditions, alongside the restrictive conditions. The research is telling us that restrictive conditions are not really bringing the rate of violence down or the reporting down. Countries like Scotland and New Zealand are trying bail supervision programs. There is better compliance and safety if you actually put more responsibility on the perpetrator.

    You need to also bring on sureties for mandatory orientation and training, recognizing that there are warning signs that they can be reporting.

     I think, overall, we need to have better regular check-ins with law enforcement. There needs to be attendance at counselling and intervention programs, and I think I'm supportive of electronic monitoring in high-risk cases. We just heard from my co-panellist who said that is really creating a monitoring compliance issue, however, if we put the burden back on the perpetrator for the reporting of violations, I think we can create an environment and shift the pendulum to where people are more self-responsible.

    Thank you, Ms. Mattoo.

    Ms. Davis, I'll ask you the same question in terms of navigation services, primarily with our kiddos.

    The biggest one that we're investing in right now is our engagement with youth—whether it's elementary age youth or whether it's at the high school level—through our youth strategy. This is something we focus on through education with youth. It's on identifying that domestic violence and those behaviours, whether they're witnessing it.... They're also potentially starting to demonstrate those behaviours in early relationships that they're having. A lot of it is around education and what healthy relationships look like, but then also providing them access to the resources they need.

    Part of it also comes down to building positive relationships. I know, for us, that's a really important part with police, that individuals know they can call the police for help in any of those situations. However, the biggest one I would say would be what we're doing around educating our youth.

    Nice. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Gagnon, I'll ask you the same question.

    First, in the case of children who live in an environment where there is domestic violence, we must consider them as victims of this violence in their own right, unfortunately, and not simply as witnesses.

    In addition, we need to train people in various sectors, including those in youth protection and education, on what coercive control is. In fact, one of our partners launched a training institute this morning for professionals who work with victims and children. One of the objectives of this training is to detect coercive control. I think this is a necessary measure.

    When it comes to young adolescents who may engage in violent behaviour, the focus must obviously be on prevention. Here too, training and activities are key. One example that comes to mind is an activity in Quebec called “Les couloirs de la violence amoureuse”, or “Behind the curtains of dating violence”. This is a fun activity that raises young people's awareness of unacceptable behaviour.

    Obviously, everything depends on training, prevention and support. Professionals in youth protection services, among others, must have a good understanding of what coercive control is and how domestic violence manifests itself. This is how we can ensure that we are not on the wrong track and that we are not overlooking something serious.

     We have time for a brief response from Ms. Auger, if that's okay.

    That would be perfect. Thank you.

    For our part, we agree with the idea of training, but it must be done on a large scale and include stakeholders from the youth protection division, precisely so that they can better understand what coercive control is and better detect its manifestations. I think that working together will really yield results. The more people are trained, the more we will have a common language and the better we will be able to intervene appropriately.

    For our part, our police officers have received training to fully understand the collateral effects on children. As Karine Gagnon rightly pointed out, children are not mere witnesses, but victims in their own right. It would therefore be worth considering whether it would be a good idea to take children into account when imposing protective conditions on bail. If there are concerns for the safety of these children, why are they not included in the conditions?

    Above all, we must avoid the kind of wording that grants an exception to any judgment handed down by the Superior Court and opens the door wide to the best leverage for potential perpetrators who—

     Thank you, Ms. Auger. Ms. Fancy’s speaking time has expired.

    Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I will continue with you, Ms. Auger.

    You mentioned consultation. That is exactly what happened in Quebec, where there was a form of consultation and non-partisan work in the context of the rebuilding trust report, Rebâtir la confiance. This report discusses specialized courts and the use of anti-approach bracelets, among other things.

    In your opinion, what are the main challenges in enforcing protection orders and protective measures such as anti-approach bracelets?

    There are two sides to this.

    Firstly, the staff currently in the field are not in a position to carry out the necessary checks to ensure compliance with the conditions. Unfortunately, large teams would be needed to carry out random checks, for example, or to go—

    Excuse me. Just one moment; we're having a problem with the translation.

    I hope you won’t count that as part of my speaking time, Madam Chair.

    Yes, I will make sure you have time.

     We'll have the technician check, and then we'll start the time again.

    I'll suspend for a couple of minutes while we sort that out. Thank you.

    Thank you for your patience as we tried to address the technical issues. It's important to have the translation in both official languages.

    We will start again with Madame Larouche for two and a half minutes, and perhaps a little more.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Since my two and a half minutes are starting over from the beginning, I will take this opportunity to address Ms. Davis.

    In one of your answers, you mentioned that domestic violence has been declared an epidemic.

    What difference does it make, in practical terms, when governments recognize the phenomenon and label it in this way?

    One of the biggest things is identifying a commitment to prioritizing how we see and how we respond to cases of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. We need to look at addressing the systemic issues that exist and potentially lead to cases of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. Demonstrating that commitment also can help to change culture and say that intimate partner violence is not something that will be tolerated in our communities.

    It does go beyond just supporting it and identifying it as an epidemic. There is funding that is required to invest in, as we talked about, wraparound supports for victims, youth and offenders. There is legislation that is required to support it. We've talked about coercive control. We've talked about more preventative measures in dealing with offenders. It's one thing to declare an epidemic. That needs to be followed by action and also by publicly identifying what actions communities are going to make and then demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling those actions.

    I have about 30 seconds left.

    You also mentioned the issue of financial dependence. Last Friday, I attended a conference on women’s finances. It was extremely interesting. That said, several of the panellists were women who had been victims of domestic violence, unfortunately. They explained that while coercive control keeps victims in a state of financial dependence, if this cycle of financial dependence is not broken, it is difficult to escape the cycle of domestic violence.

    What do you think?

     As I mentioned, I think coercive control should be added to the Criminal Code as a criminal offence because we need to look at other types of behaviour aside from just physical abuse, such as financial abuse, coercive abuse, psychological abuse, manipulation, etc. I believe that by having that as legislation, it could actually help to address those issues even where financial abuse is taking place or where dependency is involved and a victim fears reporting because they're dependent on their abuser.

     Very good. Thanks so much.

    Now we're going to Madame Vien.

    You have five minutes.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I would like to thank all the witnesses for making themselves available today.

    Ms. Gagnon, we heard Ms. Davis talk about an epidemic of domestic violence. I have here a list of crimes committed against women, and the increase we have seen over the past 10 years is chilling.

    Ms. Davis speaks of an epidemic. Would you say, Ms. Gagnon, that we are currently facing a national crisis in terms of violence against women and sexual assault?

    I find it difficult to say whether we are in a national crisis. We are certainly in an extremely worrying situation, where we are seeing a great deal of violence committed against women in particular.

    On the other hand, I would say that support organizations, intervention services, police services and prosecutors are increasingly working together.

    Are the numbers increasing because, as we hear more about it, victims are daring to turn to support services? That’s likely. The fact remains that the number of domestic homicides is extremely worrying.

    Ms. Gagnon, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that, during your opening presentation, I felt a cry from the heart when you asked if anyone anywhere knew that there was a victims’ charter and if it was being applied. Clearly, in terms of proportionality of rights, the pendulum seems to be swinging more to one side, namely that of the perpetrators.

    That is what I understood from your remarks. Have I misunderstood? Are we paying enough attention to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights?

    There is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, but also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are well aware that rights and freedoms are important for every citizen of Canada. However, when we talk about not infringing on the freedom of a perpetrator of violence, are we weighing up—

    Excuse me. I'm so sorry to interrupt. We're having difficulty again with the interpretation. Perhaps you can speak slowly. I think that may help.

    Our concern is whether we are considering that the rights and freedoms of the victim are de facto infringed upon when they are the victim of this type of violence. It doesn’t work.

    I'm so sorry. The connection is not good enough for interpretation.

    What I would say to both you and Madame Auger is that if there are answers to the questions that you want to provide to the clerk, you can write them to the clerk, and that will be good. Unfortunately, your connection is not good enough for us to respond.

    Perhaps I can help my colleague by adding to what she said.

     Perfect.

    As a criminologist, I have seen the evolution of the rights of accused persons in Canada in recent years. A lot of work has been done in this regard, and that’s fine. However, I believe that the same work should be done with regard to the rights and freedoms of victims.

    I recognize that there is a gap, but we must not diminish the rights and freedoms of accused persons. Instead, we must work to restore the balance.

    I understand what you are saying, Ms. Huet, and I have great respect for the extraordinary training you provide, but the figures I have here nevertheless show that crimes against women, particularly sexual crimes, are increasing exponentially. Something is not working. It seems to us that there is an imbalance of power.

    Earlier, Ms. Gagnon spoke about mandatory minimum sentences and said that the needs of victims should be given greater consideration. We Conservatives believe that deterrence and reporting are important elements of our legal system.

    Do you think we should return to mandatory minimum sentences? Bill C‑5abolished some of them, and Bill C‑14 does not propose to reinstate them. There is a lot of talk about ways and means, for example, to accompany the use of section 810. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t seem to be working. Shouldn’t we return to mandatory minimum sentences for certain serious crimes against women?

    Sentences must be assessed by judges. What we were saying in our speech is that the judge must not forget the consequences for the victim when making a decision. That is my response.

    What exactly do you mean?

     I am talking about determining the—

    Oh, has my speaking time expired, Madam Chair?

    Yes, unfortunately.

    I now give the floor to Ms. Ménard for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Good morning to all of you, witnesses. The depth of your comments demonstrates your great expertise. Today’s panel is all women, and that’s something I like about this hearing.

    I will try to address you, Lieutenant Detective Auger. If there are any connection problems, I will address someone else.

    In your remarks, you spoke about prevention. You are not the only one to have addressed this issue. I would like to hear your thoughts on the respective roles of community organizations and police forces in preventing domestic violence.

     I don't think Madame Auger can respond because her connection is not good enough, but she can certainly submit the response to the clerk.

    Thank you.

    For information purposes, I would have liked to compare Lieutenant Detective Auger’s response to that of the deputy chief.

    Nevertheless, I will ask you the same question, Ms. Davis: What role do you assign to the police and community organizations, respectively, in terms of prevention?

    I think prevention is a priority—probably the biggest priority.

    In Waterloo region, we've seen consistent numbers of intimate partner violence. We haven't seen them go down, but we also haven't seen them spiking over the last number of years. I would come back to the fact that, again, we have a hub model already, so whether a victim reports to police first or chooses to report to another agency that's part of our Family Violence Project hub, they have the ability to do that. There are many cases in which, maybe, a victim is not comfortable yet reporting to police, but they know they can go to any other partner and receive those supports, whether it's financial support or what to do if something happens—to set them up with a phone, or resources, or a place to go or housing with women's crisis, etc.

    Each partner has a role to play in recognizing where victims are at when they're ready to report, but, again, the commitment we've made over the last number of years is around early intervention, with a focus on prevention. When we're involved with a couple who have had more than two domestic reports—so no charges were laid, but there were calls to the police—that is a flag for us, and an officer and a victim services worker go together to actually meet with both parties to try to determine what the underlying factors are that may be causing them to be reporting to police, and then work on those. That's one thing we're really committed to. In fact, if we could expand it and have more resources.... We know that it is having an impact. We're seeing fewer cases in which we're involved with those individuals who are actually progressing to a stage of charges.

    Your work is truly remarkable. You have very creative programs to truly align with the needs of victims. You all spoke about the power of training.

     What can you tell us about the importance of training, Ms. Davis? If we make changes to the Criminal Code, there will be a period of adjustment. During the implementation phase, these changes may not be effective because those responsible for applying them may not be sufficiently trained.

     What can you tell us about this?

     We're very lucky. We have had a dedicated domestic violence or intimate partner violence team since 2006. They're specially trained investigators; once a patrol officer gets to a point of grounds having been established, they transfer it over to a trained domestic or intimate partner violence investigator to go through the risk assessment, the safety planning and preparing the documents, etc., for court.

    They receive training through the Ontario Police College to be certified to investigate. They must be certified to investigate intimate partner violence to actually work in that unit.

    Again, I draw your attention back to the “National Framework for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Coercive Control”. We've held our first conference where we train members of police agencies. This is imperative. We need to do training to actually have our members be able to identify these signs early.

    I only have 30 seconds left; that’s a bit cruel.

    Ms. Mattoo, in light of this information, do you see a discrepancy between Ms. Davis’s testimony, where we sense that training is taken very seriously, and the way survivors perceive their experience with the police?

    I really appreciate and I am really impressed with what Ms. Davis has been telling us, but I have to tell you that's not a universal stance of the police services all across the board. That is particularly happening in that region. We see so many gaps on the ground on a daily basis all across Ontario. That's where we work.

     One of the biggest pieces that needs to happen for the Victims' Bill of Rights, as we were saying, is that every survivor should have independent legal advice available to them when these situations are unfolding for them, and that does not happen.

    Thank you very much.

    Okay, now we go to our third round.

    We'll start with Ms. Roberts for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I want to go back to something you stated earlier, Deputy Chief Davis, about the GPS monitoring giving a false sense of security. Can you please let the survivors and families at home know how they're supposed to defend themselves?

    The reason I'm asking this question is we've had an individual named Cait Alexander as a witness, who was a survivor of intimate partner violence. She's had to leave the country because she doesn't feel safe.

    This would bring me back to when I made the statement that I believe GPS ankle monitoring does work in some cases—maybe low-threshold cases, low-risk cases, or where you have a very compliant offender who's willing to abide by the conditions.

    If I could, I only have limited time. I'm sorry; I don't mean to interject here.

    What are the numbers in Waterloo for intimate partner violence? We know nationally it's up 76%.

    I would need to look it up on my computer to give you the exact numbers.

    Okay, if you could get that back to the committee, I would appreciate that.

    For sure.

    Thank you.

    I would like to address my next question to Lieutenant Detective Laio Auger.

    Madame Auger is not able to respond because the quality of her connection is not good.

    Oh, I'm sorry.

    You can ask her the question and she could send an answer to the clerk.

    Okay.

    I checked my connection. Maybe we can try and I can answer in English, if it's easier.

    Yes, let's try it again and I'll add some time.

    Okay, thank you very much.

    No, it is still not possible for the interpreter to do their job properly, Madam Chair.

    Apparently it's still not good enough, so you can ask your question, but we'll get an answer in writing, I think.

    All right.

    Could you respond in writing to what the deputy chief said earlier about GPS monitoring and having a false sense of security? What would you tell the families of survivors and victims listening to us today about how we can better defend them given the stats that GPS monitoring is not safe?

    If you could send us that, I would appreciate it very much.

    My next question is for the deputy chief.

    We talk about people being released on bail. How many times does an individual have to breach that bail in order for us to detain them?

     That all depends on the facts of each individual case. We know that people are breaching, and then they're being re-released on a new order with new conditions.

     I'm going to stop you there because, in my riding, a man was killed in a home invasion protecting his children. The York Regional Police did a fantastic job; they arrested four out of the five criminals. I call them criminals. One of them was on bail four times, and one was on bail twice.

    I go back to my original question. Let's take this particular case. That man would have been alive today. What do I say to their family? How many times do we have to let them out on bail?

    That is a question that's hard for me to answer. That's a court decision at that point. That's up to the justice system.

    The justice system has failed a family, and now this family is without their father because our bail system failed to protect the innocent victims.

    I would reiterate that you need to look at the individual facts of each case, and it is up to that court to make the determination at that point.

    Would you then say that the judges need to understand that an individual who breaches bail that many times should not be trusted?

    I'm just using common sense. Someone breaches once, twice, three strikes, you're out. What about four times?

    It is a cyclical problem sometimes, when we are not seeing that someone is taking their conditions seriously, and they're being breached repeatedly. It is a frustration, and we do know that it is putting the victim and family potentially at increased risk because of a release. We do everything we can in those cases to try to ensure compliance with bail conditions to try to protect the victim. That is our role in those cases.

    Thank you.

    Now we're going to go to Ms. Nathan for five minutes, please.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Through you, thank you to you all for being here and being witnesses. It's a very important study, and we want to really understand the premise.

    My first question is going to be for Deepa. The same question could be for Jackie as well. I'm sorry I'm using your first names, if that's okay.

     I know the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic very well. I worked in the sector for many years.

    I want to understand how section 810 affects victims from all backgrounds. Black, indigenous and racialized communities usually face compounded legal and social barriers when seeking protection. Based on your clinic or the victim service experience, what specific measures should federal legislation include to ensure that these survivors are meaningfully protected? From your experience, what has fallen through the cracks, and what kind of recommendations can you give?

    Thank you so much, MP Nathan. I'm really glad to see you in this role.

    In terms of the cultural and intersectional responsiveness of the system, we see very generalized conditions that are imposed in these systems of peace bonds and bail conditions. We don't see tailored, structured conditions. We don't see response to the experiences.

    I think Ms. Davis has been saying, from her experience, that there are lots of survivors who do not want to leave the abuser. They want to maintain the household that they have. They have the complexity of being part of the community, and they want the abuse to stop. We need tailored conditions for indigenous, racialized and newcomer communities. We require evidence-based interventions.

    Something that is really important to think through is that, in the last 40 years, the number of people in our country living in pretrial detentions has doubled. That has not necessarily reduced the crime of domestic violence and gender-based violence. Knowing that the stats are so high of people who are already in pretrial detentions, I think the situation has come to a point of an epidemic, and we need to have community interventions and wraparound services for everyone involved, not only for the survivor but also for the person who's charged.

    Importantly, I want to highlight that a lot of survivors of coercive control get charged in the system, and they are also put under the same scrutiny of law. We don't want to make any unintended changes to law and harm society and the communities as well.

     Can you also talk a bit about what kinds of recommendations you would make for the police as a system?

    I know different police units from different cities operate differently when it comes to domestic violence and how they approach victims. Are there any recommendations you could give for that?

    One of the biggest recommendations is what we have found in some of these really good community interventions models from abroad. I think it's really important that we look at those models very closely. These models have a really great, nuanced understanding of danger and risk where they are working with the communities closely. The cops need to really understand their communities and work with the wraparound services in the community.

    I also think there is responsibility that needs to shift to the cops. Do they understand the survivor's risk? There's so much focus on the perpetrator that the survivor in the equation is completely missed at times. That trauma-informed practice we all keep talking about means they would actually focus and centre on the needs of the survivor and see what she wants in the process.

    Currently, because of the mandatory charging policies, at times cops take the stance that they actually cannot focus on the survivor. They have to come up with charging one of the two parties. When the survivor insists on getting heard, they charge both of them or, in fact, they charge survivors sometimes.

     Thank you for that.

    I would like to hear from Jackie and Karine as well on the same question. I'll ask a different question of law enforcement and they could send in the answers as well.

    From your perspective on section 810, you've talked about how it doesn't really do a lot of prevention and education. Can you make some recommendations on how it could be changed so that's incorporated into that?

    That's your time.

    If you can send your answers in to the clerk, that would be wonderful.

    Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    For this round, my questions will be directed to Deepa Mattoo.

    You just touched on the subject of my question, but I would like to learn more.

    In your opening presentation, you talked about models in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Australia, among others. You just repeated that there are good models abroad that we could examine. You mentioned that good models have one thing in common: They demonstrate a good understanding of the various risks.

    Can you tell us what other elements you see in these good models abroad?

    The advantage of the overseas models, especially the one in Scotland and the U.K., is mandating behaviour-change programs for people on bail. There is a need for them to be enrolled in substance misuse treatment if they are abusing substances. They are referred for mental health counselling. All of these decisions are made with a survivor-centric risk assessment.

    I think this mandatory social work engagement and trauma-informed practice for offenders under bail supervision is the piece that we are completely missing. We are also missing integrated bail support that links offenders to housing, mental health, addictions and therapeutic jurisprudence for coercive control cases. We have focused a lot on either punitive measures or diversions. I think the time has come when we need to look at the paradigm shift. The paradigm shift asks for support for everyone.

    I don't want the supports for survivors to be taken away. I want more supports for the perpetrators. I think that is a confusion that sometimes happens. Survivor supports need to stay and perpetrators need to have their own set of supports made available to them.

    I have 30 seconds left.

    You just mentioned victims. In your experience, does the Criminal Code adequately reflect the reality experienced by victims in terms of coercive control and psychological abuse?

    I don't think so. The Criminal Code doesn't talk about psychological abuse, but there is enough language in the Criminal Code that psychological abuse and coercive control can be read into it.

    For many years, the clinic's position has been that expanding the Criminal Code definition is not what the problem is. Expanding our policies on the ground and changing our training practices are where the solutions lie.

    Thank you.

    Now we'll go to Ms. Cody for five minutes.

     Thank you, Chair.

     Through you, I want to talk about something that doesn't get enough attention and was mentioned by the deputy chief: financial coercion. It's another damaging form of control because it can trap survivors long after a relationship ends. I'm hearing about situations where a partner refuses to sell a home or blocks asset separation. Right now, the burden often falls on the survivors to initiate legal action and bear the bulk of the burden.

     I'd love to hear some thoughts on it, so I'd like to direct that question to Ms. Huet. How well do you think law enforcement courts currently recognize financial control as a part of coercive behaviour? Does it need more consideration so that it doesn't lead to potential intimate partner violence?

    I’m not sure I understood the question correctly.

    I was wondering if the law enforcement courts should recognize financial control as part of coercive behaviour and give it more consideration so that it doesn't lead to potential intimate partner violence.

    Coercive control is not a form of violence in itself. Rather, it is a set of violent acts, and financial violence can be one of them. So, if we criminalize coercive control, financial violence could be part of the evidence used to prove coercive control.

    This question is also for Ms. Huet. In the past, we heard witnesses say that Canada still lacks a legal definition of intimate partner violence in the Criminal Code. Do you believe that in creating a legal definition, it could be used for better clarity that would benefit survivors and their protection?

     If so, could you please explain why? What do you see as being pertinent in this legal definition?

    You say there is no definition, yet it is already mentioned in section 810.03 of the Criminal Code. I think it refers to violence in a family context and in a context between intimate partners. So, should there be a definition within the meaning of the law? I think the context is more important than the definition.

    I'd like to ask the deputy chief some questions on financial coercion as well, if I might.

    How does financial coercion intersect with other forms of abuse, and what does that mean for how we design the interventions and enforcement?

     If we go back to what Bill C-332 had with respect to coercive control, that was one of the elements identified in the bill. Specifically, it was “controlling or attempting to control the intimate partner’s finances or other property or monitoring their finances”. It fit in as one of the things that could be evaluated with the prior legislation under coercive control.

    Can you repeat your question one more time for me, please?

     How does financial coercion intersect with other forms of abuse, and what does that mean for how we design the interventions and enforcement?

     That would bring me back to the part where I mentioned having support in place around that early intervention and how we're supporting our victims and families, because that might be where it comes up, especially when we're referring to an immigrant, a refugee or someone who is financially dependent on their abuser to be able to have access...and report the abuse that is going on. It's only at that point that we'll be able to help provide support and give them other opportunities.

    It is a civil matter. I can appreciate the frustration with the examples you were speaking of when it came down to the financials and the sale of a house, but trying to prove the criminality of that part is sometimes tricky in defining what clear criminal offence has occurred. Is it a civil matter at that point?

    Deputy Chief, you are the co-chair on the crime prevention, community safety and well-being committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Combatting coercive control is one of your key priorities. We heard from a previous witness, Pierre Brochet, that he believes criminalizing coercive control could not only reinforce section 810 of the Criminal Code, but replace it.

     What are your thoughts on this, and do you agree?

     I don't know about replacing section 810 of the Criminal Code, because I think of many other situations where a peace bond may be a good remedy to a situation. I would think that the addition of coercive control as a stand-alone criminal offence would make more sense to address these matters, not replacing the benefits that section 810 can still have in other situations.

     Thank you very much.

    Now we'll go to Ms. Khalid for five minutes.

     Thank you very much.

    I really appreciate the conversation that we're having today.

    Deputy Chief Davis, can we talk about reverse onus and what that means for bail and bail reform?

    I would say that we've started to see some improvements, especially with what has come out with Bill C-14.

    It's clarifying the fact that with reverse onus situations—where violence or a pattern of behaviour has happened over a duration of time or where you've seen multiple offences happening over a duration of time—it speaks to the fact that the responsibility should shift from the courts to the offender to demonstrate why they should be released.

     I think some of the changes we've seen under Bill C-14 will actually address some of the challenges we've previously seen around reverse onus.

     Are you in support of Bill C-14, then?

     I am in support of reverse onus shifting to the responsibility of an offender, absolutely, instead of the Crown, and for sure for a repeat instance.

    I appreciate that.

    Reverse onus has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, etc., and it's always challenging in terms of balancing the crime and its implications within our communities.

    How do you think the different levels of government should be stepping up? I know that there have been allegations made that, in Ontario at least, there's not enough space in jails to house people on that reverse onus basis.

    What do you think all levels of government can do to make sure our communities are kept safe?

    I think strengthening legislation is a very good place to start. Bail reform is a very good place to start.

    At the provincial and municipal levels, I appreciate the fact that funding is going to be required to invest in a probably increasing capacity in our existing jails to house perpetrators who have committed crimes or patterns of crimes. I appreciate also, though, that we should be doing what we can to leverage opportunities when diversion is an option, when earlier intervention is an option.

     I don't think it's one or the other. I think it's trying to ensure that there's support at all levels and knowing that things may escalate to the point where custody is required, but the problem is ensuring that we actually have capacity in our jails right now to deal with an increase in persons who may be held in custody.

    I appreciate that, Deputy Chief.

    We see a lot of mental health challenges in how people react to a lot of the issues we're talking about right now. Our police are front and centre and at the front lines of dealing with a lot of that. Can you also make some recommendations on how we, at the federal level, deal with mental health challenges in terms of supporting police as they're dealing with them?

    I think one significant option that we've really been advocating for is around justice centres. I've mentioned our Family Violence Project, that hub of wraparound supports, and we see similar programs in justice centres, where you also have supporting agencies working together with the courts to provide the necessary supports.

    For an individual with mental health suffering, going through a court system and holding them in jail is not the best treatment method for them. How do we actually provide the right supports they require in order to ensure their safety, the safety of the victim and the safety of the public in general? That would probably be one significant one: How are we investing in actually providing wraparound supports and different avenues for individuals as well? Police should be active partners at the table for that.

     Thank you so much.

    We have about 13 minutes left. Is it the will of the committee to have one question for each party?

    One question per party would be great.

    Okay, let's do that.

    We'll start then, with Dominique, or you can share your time, five minutes-ish.

    How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

     About four minutes.

     Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    My question is for Ms. Gagnon.

    I haven’t provided all the details about the increase in crimes against women, given the limited time I have, but it is a real phenomenon. The numbers are very high.

    To explain this increase, Ms. Gagnon, you said that it might be due to the fact that women are reporting more crimes. I remember that the same thing was said to explain the very high rate of reports to the Youth Protection Division.

    Do you not think that Bill C‑5, which allowed suspended sentences to be served at home, and Bill C‑75, which allowed dangerous people to be released, have something to do with it?

    You don’t have to look far. Just think of the case of Ms. McCourt in British Columbia, or the case of Ms. Renaud in September. These are very recent events. What is happening is frightening.

    Don’t you think that Bills C‑5 and C‑75 have played a major role in the increase in the number of crimes of this type committed over the past 10 years? Even the Minister of Justice has said that there has been a 41% increase in crime in Canada over the past 10 years.

    We must not overlook the consequences of these two bills, which C‑14 attempts to remedy, but which, in my opinion, will only be partially successful. Do you not think that Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5 played a major role in our failure to protect women?

    Obviously, I am not in a position to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these two things.

    As we mentioned, what particularly concerns us is that the needs of victims must be truly taken into account when determining appropriate sentences. They must be given the space they need to express themselves in this regard. Among their needs is safety, not only physical safety, but also psychological safety. In our view, these are important considerations that should be given greater weight.

    As my colleague mentioned earlier, the idea is not to take away the rights of perpetrators of violence, but to restore the balance so that the rights of victims are given greater consideration.

    Sorry, again, your connection is fading out. You can respond in writing to the clerk.

    Madame Vien, you have some time left.

     These technical problems are really unpleasant. We really need to find a way to fix them.

    I assume I don’t have much speaking time left, but I will now address Ms. Davis.

    My colleague Mr. Caputo has introduced Bill C‑225, which would make the murder of an intimate partner a first-degree murder.

    What are your thoughts on this, Ms. Davis?

    I think, again, you would need to look at the facts and issue of the case and whether it actually meets the definition of first-degree murder in the Criminal Code.

    Thank you very much.

    Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 55%; homicides by 30%; sexual assaults by 76%; crimes committed with firearms by 130%; vehicle thefts by 25%; and extortion by 330%. I could go on and on.

    I can’t wait for people to wake up to this, to talk about victims’ rights and to determine how to make them a priority. Several bills on this subject have been introduced in the House of Commons, but they have died on the Order Paper. That’s a shame. Let’s take stock of what is currently happening in Quebec, which has seen its 15th femicide since the beginning of 2025. I don’t know how many more there will be.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

     Thank you so much.

    Now we'll go to Ms. Fancy for four minutes.

    Thank you very much. Thank you to my colleague Madame Vien for her question. I'm going to follow up with a very similar question.

    I'd like to go to Ms. Mattoo.

     The clinic that you work with works very closely with survivors to navigate these complex legal systems, often providing counselling, interpretation and trauma-informed legal aid. The work that you're doing is amazing.

    From your experience, to follow up on Madame Vien's question, would a law focus solely on harsher sentencing, like Mr. Caputo's private member's bill C-225?

     Do you feel that that would truly address the barriers that survivors are facing?

    Unfortunately, I have to say “no”. If just harsher sentencing and more punitive measures were the solution, we would have made at least some dent.

    I want to remind this committee that the government of this country made a decision to make forced marriages a crime, and as of today I haven't seen one single successful prosecution under that change in the Criminal Code. There are lots of changes made in the Criminal Code for protecting women. Unfortunately, they don't make a dent on the ground. We also have many crimes where we have the reverse onus provision currently. In fact, the jumping of bail that we're talking about is a reverse onus crime, but so many people are let go on that reverse onus.

    I think the solution lies in much deeper intervention. That sits with providing supports and providing more intervention for the perpetrators. We need to create more accountability. That accountability starts with better supports and better education.

    The last point I want to make in answer to your question is about educating our young people, but educating them at a very young age. I'm not talking about educating youth. I'm talking about educating children in schools. That's where this education needs to start.

    Thank you.

    That's wonderful.

    With my remaining time, if you can indulge me, Madam Chair, I have a question for Ms. Davis.

    I'm wondering if you could please speak to the role that firearms play in IPV cases in regard to interventions with firearms and carriers. I ask this because I live in a rural riding, where I have a lot of farmers who have a firearm.

    With Bill C-21, we saw the restriction of certain firearms, assault-style firearms. I appreciate that there are many law-abiding, registered firearms owners, but as I mentioned to you, to go back to my speaking notes, the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee did find that in about 25% of all cases, especially in cases where there were documented reports of prior intimate partner violence incidents, a firearm was used in the cases reviewed where homicide was committed. We know that in 58% of those same cases, it ended up in a homicide-suicide situation. We know that in many of those situations, it is either the individual on their own or through an intervention by police when that incident happens.

    So firearms are a concern. They should be a concern to all of us. I appreciate the fact that under section 810.03, we can actually require the surrender of all firearms and also the suspension or revocation of the PAL. I think that's a necessary step. Will it prevent all cases? No, because illegal firearms may still be used, but at the same time, if it prevents one, it's serving its intended purpose.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for the last intervention. You have four minutes of speaking time.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to point out that we have been talking a lot about education for some time now. I had the opportunity to experience this tool called “Les couloirs de la violence amoureuse”, or “Behind the curtains of dating violence”. So I am thinking about this tool that you mentioned, Ms. Gagnon. It is true that it is a truly striking experience. This type of violence is making a strong comeback, particularly among teenagers. Unfortunately, it sometimes feels like we are taking a step backwards. So we hope that other young people will be able to experience this.

    I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask Ms. Auger some more questions, but I will turn to Ms. Huet, if her connection allows us to do so.

    Since I have the last word, I would like you to tell the committee what you think would be the most useful thing to do as a priority. Should we strengthen the law, training or partnerships?

    What should be prioritized? It’s difficult to say, because all three things are important. I think the efforts that have been made on these three fronts over the last few years show that they can have an effect when all three are reinforced.

    I will ask you the same question, Ms. Davis: If we had one element to strengthen between legislation, training and partnerships, what should be the priority?

     I firmly believe that the partnerships are imperative. We talked a lot about prevention. I don't think prevention can happen without partnerships and providing those wraparound supports for victims, for youth, for offenders to try and stop and break that cycle of violence early.

    In your opinion, Ms. Mattoo, what should be strengthened as a priority: legislation, training or partnerships?

    I think we need to do everything together. We need to have rehabilitative and supportive conditions alongside the restrictive measures that we keep on focusing on. Alone, it cannot work. I can't emphasize enough the resources that need to be allocated to the justice system. Overall, we need more judges. We need more lawyers. We need more trained Crown. We need more cops on the streets. It's not necessarily one thing. Along with that, we need mental health support and supports for the GBV organizations.

     As long as we don't have everything and good training, we are not going to be able to plug this. The problem is too big. Someone asked earlier why we call it an epidemic. It's because we want it to be tackled at the level of COVID. It required $925 billion to solve that problem. That's the level of investment this problem needs.

    I have 30 seconds left.

    When it comes to training, another thing we often hear about, and which seems to be unanimously agreed upon, is that coercive control needs to be better recognized, and more tools need to be provided in this regard.

    I don’t know if anyone would like to respond, in 15 or 20 seconds, to the question I was going to ask Ms. Auger earlier: Do the staff involved and the police receive sufficient training on coercive control, or should we consider strengthening this aspect as well, if we decide to criminalize it?

     I think the police officers don't have enough training on context, period. I'm sorry if I jumped in, if that wasn't a question for me. I think the police officers don't have the training on context and contextualization.

    It's no problem. It was a great answer, but that is the end of our time.

    I want to thank all of our witnesses. I apologize to the ones for whom we had connection issues. As I said, please, I encourage you to send your comments to the chair. We really value that as a committee. Thanks to all of you for the great work that you do and for your time today.

     Now on Wednesday, I just want to let the committee know that we have two one-hour panels with witnesses still on this study.

    Until then, the meeting is adjourned.