Status of Women Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[Marie-Claude Richer, Lawyer and Director, Rebâtir]

Thank you.

My name is Marie‑Claude Richer. I'm a lawyer and director of Rebâtir. For 47 years, I was a friend of Lisette Corbeil, who was a victim of femicide in 2021. While this fatal act was the first instance of physical violence against her, she had been a victim of coercive control for a number of years. She had told police that she was fearing for her safety a few weeks before her murder. At no point was she given the option of making an application under section 810 of the Criminal Code.

With me is Catherine Ahélo, a criminal lawyer at Rebâtir. We're the only criminal law firm in Quebec that advises only victims.

Rebâtir was created on September 21, 2021. Our mandate is to offer four hours of free legal advice to all victims of domestic and sexual violence, anywhere in Quebec and in all areas of law.

The position that we're expressing today is based on our experience helping more than 22,000 victims and providing more than 93,000 legal consultations.

Of those victims, 93% are women. We know the needs of victims when it comes to the necessity for better protection under federal legislation. That's why we'd like to reiterate that, in Canada, there's an urgent need to recognize coercive control as a criminal act.

In addition to being a deterrent, that recognition would enable police officers and prosecutors to present that continuum of freedom-depriving acts as evidence in court. Judges would then have a more accurate picture of the situation, and they could make informed decisions. They can't do that right now, since all they have is one snapshot of a film that has often been going on for a long time.

[Catherine Ahélo, Lawyer, Rebâtir]

Orders under section 810 and the following provisions serve a preventive purpose.

In practice, though, when it comes to domestic violence, this type of order is almost always used to settle a case in which charges have already been laid. The accused will be acquitted of the criminal offence in exchange for that kind of commitment.

In reality, a victim who wants to use section 810 as a preventive measure will encounter major obstacles, making it practically impossible or ineffective to use that measure.

Victims who approach police officers to use section 810 will too often be told that if the facts of the case don't include a criminal offence, the victim can't submit an application under section 810 to the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, or DPCP, despite there being risk factors for homicide.

In that case, they will have to make their application on their own, directly at the courthouse. They could be represented by a lawyer, but that service isn't covered by legal aid. The vast majority of victims can't afford to pay for a lawyer. Having to represent oneself against the perpetrator of the violence is a major barrier to this type of preventive measure.

In addition, when the perpetrator of the violence is served with a section 810 application, no safety net will be put in place during the legal proceedings. Several weeks, if not months, can elapse between when the proceedings are served and when the section 810 application is heard. Since receiving legal proceedings can increase the risk of homicide, this lack of conditions during the proceedings and this long delay constitute another major barrier to the safety of victims.

The 12‑month maximum duration for a section 810 order isn't long enough to adequately protect victims in a domestic context.

Some of the amendments proposed in Bill C‑225 seem very promising to us. It's indeed essential that all murders of intimate partners, including femicides, be treated as first-degree murder, as are murders of police officers in the line of duty.

We also believe that it's essential to regulate the police discretion to release individuals. We support the proposal to add clause 499.1 to the Criminal Code, but we believe that the list of offences against an intimate partner is too limited. The current proposal leaves out a number of offences that are common in the context of domestic violence.

Furthermore, restricting the application of clause 499.1 in cases where, just before the arrest, the person was at large on a release order seems problematic to us. The use of the term “immediately” is vague and imprecise, and it doesn't cover situations where conditions may be breached long after such conditions were imposed. It's also essential for this measure to also apply when the person is subject to conditions as part of a police undertaking.

Finally, we can only agree with the proposal to give the court the power to order a risk-of-reoffending assessment at any stage of the proceedings. In Quebec, we currently have the option to conduct a danger assessment at the bail hearings stage, but that requires the consent of the accused. That greatly limits the effectiveness of such a measure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ahélo.

We will now begin our first round of questions.

Madame Vien, we'll start with you. You have six minutes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

We've heard many things, and that gives us food for thought. Things were moving quickly, so we may come back to certain issues. I felt that, for the witnesses, it was a bit of a race against the clock.

I just want to reassure you, Ms. Ahélo. Our colleague Frank Caputo is a former Crown attorney. He was here for the first hour of the meeting. He's the one who introduced Bill C‑225. My colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two things to note in the bill. First, an assessment can be requested and required at any time. The judge will have that power. Second, it would make intimate partner crime a first degree crime. That's the news for today.

Ms. Richer, this week we heard from Karine Gagnon, from the Crime Victims Assistance Centres Network, or CAVAC. In the first hour of this meeting, our two guests were quite harsh about section 810 and breaches of conditions. They said they were fed up with the fact that conditions were being breached and that it wasn't being resolved. They were also a bit harsh on the police. In fact, I'll come back to that when I turn to Mr. Sauvé.

The witnesses said that people use section 810 for lack of anything better. It's clear that there are delays, that there are staff shortages and that there can at least be some immediate action. However, according to the witnesses from the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, this section isn't adapted to the reality on the ground and isn't the right measure to use.

Today, these witnesses have provided us with plenty of perspectives on the violence women experience on a daily basis. We also inherited Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. We think that has had repercussions that have led to an increase in violence. We stand by that fact.

Do you share Karine Gagnon's view that people are turning to section 810 when it isn't the right tool? She believes that it isn't what people should normally turn to. This provision is getting used because there isn't enough time to use other ones.

[Marie-Claude Richer]

According to section 810, as Ms. Ahélo and the other witnesses said, even when victims want the protection that the section provides for, the police don't file a report if no crime has been committed. It's the victim who has to go to court themselves and make that application. I will give the floor to Ms. Ahélo, if necessary. She's really our criminal law specialist.

Section 810 doesn't exist, strictly speaking. I mean that it isn't applied in its actual form. Section 810 is applied when a crime has been committed and the victim, for a variety of reasons, doesn't want to go to trial. It's also applied when the Crown doesn't think its evidence is sufficient or strong enough. Once section 810 is applied in cases where conditions have been breached, the police have to intervene. However, that isn't happening on the ground. That's the problem.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Richer.

Mr. Sauvé, what do you have to say in your defence? What do you have to say to the women who just testified on this issue?

I agree that modern resources and mechanisms are needed. However, as described to us by witnesses who work with abused women, the reality on the ground is that the police don't seem to want to intervene.

I'm not putting all the blame on your shoulders. That's not it. Maybe you don't have enough resources. You may not be intervening quickly enough.

As a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, what do you say to these witnesses?

[Brian Sauvé]

I agree with everything I've heard thus far. I will sit back and say that section 810 is lacking—definitely lacking. As a police officer, it does not provide adequate protections. We do have police officers out there who will not take those applications, mainly because there's not enough time.

At the same time, I'll sit back and say that this is not just the police. We're talking about federal, provincial and territorial resources here. We're talking about the number of Crown counsels, the number of court spaces available and the number of judges available who may not hear, may not entertain or may not want to entertain an application from a police officer on a file to apply for a peace bond. A whole bunch of issues are blocking the effective use of section 810.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sauvé.

You touched on Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75 earlier. You briefly touched on Bill C‑14, which was introduced in this new Parliament. In our opinion, this is a step in the right direction, but it's clearly insufficient.

What do you have to say about Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75?

Those bills have a lot of critics. That may have made things much more difficult on the ground when it comes to women's safety.

[Brian Sauvé]

I mentioned Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. I'm cautiously optimistic that Bill C-14 speaks to reverse onus bail provisions for domestic and intimate partner violence, so I'm looking forward to seeing how the future looks with respect to bail reform.

Granted, that is post offence, and we're talking here about how we can divert and make it safer pre offence.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.

Ladies, you've heard about the Renaud and McCourt cases. In both cases, the families are calling for the creation of a registry of violent men.

If memory serves, there is a sex offender registry, but a registry should also be created to record cases of domestic or intimate partner violence.

What do you think? Would that be a good idea?

Mr. Sauvé, you talked about the need to be able to share information. That's along the same lines.

[Marie-Claude Richer]

Yes, there is already a registry for sex offenders. I think that having a registry for perpetrators of domestic violence would indeed provide more protection for victims. We would know that these people are problematic. When a victim contacts us at Rebâtir, the first thing we do is consult the minutes book to find information about that perpetrator. We try to determine whether he has a criminal record. We want to know who we're dealing with.

You will understand that the advice we give to victims will be based on what we have been able to find in the minutes book.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

It's hard to get access to the minutes book—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm so sorry. That's the end of your time. This is the hard part of the job.

We're going now to Ms. Nathan for six minutes.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

I want to ask Hilda the following question.

Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQ people face a disproportionately high rate of violence and systemic barriers when seeking protection. You mentioned that in your opening speech as well.

How should the federal reforms to bail and peace bonds be adapted to reflect indigenous rights, cultural safety and lived realities?

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

I think it's really critical that they engage with indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit and gender-diverse people. Have them present, have equity in decision-making and have resources at the table for their full participation, to determine what this can look like through their lens.

Also, more so, fund indigenous initiatives, whether they be education.... Many indigenous women are not informed of what their rights are within the justice system. Often, they're not respected when they're trying to utilize these mechanisms and instruments.

It's addressing the systemic and structural racism that exists within these different mechanisms, whether it be policing or the justice system. Have policy and legislation developed around that, and fully embed the specific calls for justice related to addressing these matters.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Thank you for that.

I'll go to the two people on the screen, Catherine and Marie-Claude.

You know the government has introduced Bill C-14 to strengthen bail and protect victims of intimate partner violence. From your experience in supporting survivors through your organization, how do you see these proposed changes improving safety on the ground for women and gender-diverse individuals fleeing violence?

Comment specifically on Bill C-14 and how you see it applying.

[Marie-Claude Richer]

Ms. Ahélo, would you like to answer the question?

[Catherine Ahélo]

Okay.

In fact, what victims on the ground really need is arrests and detentions to take place when they report a breach of conditions. That would eventually make it possible to apply the measures that exist when individuals appear as detainees. This is a key point in ensuring the safety of victims.

Right now, female victims summon up their courage to report criminal offences. Conditions are imposed on the perpetrator of the violence. These conditions aren't respected, and when they subsequently file a complaint, they aren't listened to. The case is submitted by summons, and there is no restraining order against the perpetrator of the violence, the accused.

Victims are losing faith in the justice system. It discourages them, and they are reluctant to move forward.

In addition, the fact that they may have to testify on the main issue demotivates them. In my opinion, this is the main problem for victims right now.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

This is for Catherine and Marie-Claude.

Your organization has emphasized the need for a cluster list for high-risk behaviour, to prevent femicide. What key indicators should be included and how would a national legislative framework help frontline organizations intervene sooner?

[Catherine Ahélo]

If I understand the question correctly, you're referring to femicide. We believe that the murder of any intimate partner should be included in the definition of first-degree murder. We don't want there to be a distinction between men and women.

It is also essential to add “including femicide” and a definition of femicide. This would recognize the existence of this scourge across Canada.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

I have one question I could probably ask Brian.

The police are often first responders for racialized Black and indigenous women, who have historically faced deep mistrust in justice institutions. What training or structural changes would help to ensure that bail and peace bond enforcement would better protect the communities?

[Brian Sauvé]

It was interesting. I was listening to Hilda, and I went back to when the previous government started a study on the first nations indigenous policing program. It has stalled. As part of that, we were consulted and asked to put in what we might recommend.

Exactly as Hilda was saying, there were a whole bunch of our recommendations to improve the first nations indigenous policing program. One of them was to have culturally sensitive training for our police officers, perhaps with cultural liaisons within those indigenous communities as police officers come in. There could be longer postings. It could be the ability to have refresher courses or the ability to really know community bylaws and have consistency in that.

What we have seen and what our members have told us is that, with constant transfers in and out, with the change of personnel and with no consistency in knowledge of the heritage, the bylaws or what the community is like—and everybody's different in Canada, which is one of the lovely things about this community we have—you end up with inconsistent application and lack of trust, because you don't have consistent people there. That is probably what I would recommend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much. That is the end of your time.

Madame Larouche, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to the four witnesses, who represent three associations, for participating in this study today. This is extremely enlightening. This is happening in a week when we're hearing a lot about crimes committed in a domestic context.

I would have liked to put a question earlier to the representatives of the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, but I ran out of time. I'll turn to the representatives from Rebâtir.

Like other witnesses, you talked about the importance of criminalizing coercive control in broadening our vision of gender-based violence. This week, I heard about the Institut Écho, which offers training in various settings to enlighten people about coercive control and help them recognize the signs.

Have you heard of that?

It's fine to criminalize coercive control, but how could providing training help victims?

In this study, we're talking about the justice system and section 810. We were told that it was more or less effective.

How could addressing coercive control help address the ineffectiveness of section 810?

[Marie-Claude Richer]

Institut Écho is an initiative of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale au Québec.

It has already trained more than 20,000 legal actors in Quebec on coercive control. Obviously, we want coercive control to be criminalized, but we know that, to be able to detect it properly, we have to understand what it is.

That's why this institute was set up. It's a complementary tool. Its purpose is to inform people from various backgrounds, whether it be in the judicial field, the health and social services field, the community field or the police field.

Training can help them fully understand what coercive control is. When this type of behaviour is criminalized, all of these people will be able to detect it. They will be able to build a proper case so that the Crown prosecutor is able to start a prosecution, and we can get to court. That's the role of Institut Écho.