Status of Women Committee on Nov. 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

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.

[Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director and Lawyer, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Gagnon, you have five minutes.

[Karine Gagnon, Organizational Support and Development Coordinator, Crime Victims Assistance Centres Network]

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—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

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.

[Karine Gagnon]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

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

[Laio Auger, Lieutenant Detective, Domestic Violence Unit, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

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.

[Jennifer Davis, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Operational Support, Waterloo Regional Police Service]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

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.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

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?

[Jennifer Davis]

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.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Give a brief response please.

[Jennifer Davis]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

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

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

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?

[Jennifer Davis]

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.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

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?

[Jennifer Davis]

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.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

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

[Jennifer Davis]

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.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

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?