First of all, I want to pay my respects to the members of the committee.
I am a retired supervisor at the SPVM, where I specialized in the appropriate use of force.
Since 2021, André Gélinas and I have been trying to make elected officials and the public aware of the importance of prioritizing the rights and freedoms of victims of violent crime over those of violent criminals who have been overprotected in Canada for 10 years. In particular, we asked that the principles of the act that flowed from former bill C‑75 be replaced with a principle of greater protection of the public for violent crimes.
Does the name Gabie Renaud from Saint-Jérôme ring a bell with committee members? She was the 14th victim of domestic violence in Quebec in 2025. We must not minimize these cases, as some previous witnesses have done. Her killer, Jonathan Blanchette, had accumulated about 30 charges for violent crimes, often committed in a domestic context. He violated his court-ordered conditions 16 times. If Gabie Renaud had been your daughter or your sister, you could have legitimately lost confidence in elected officials and the justice system, which gives too many opportunities for violent criminals to make more victims of domestic, sexual or gun violence. We are all in favour of the principle of rehabilitation, but we are asking for a balance between rehabilitation and the protection of the public. Far too many women are victims.
Parliament must understand that crimes against property and crimes against the person should not be put on an equal footing. We propose a clear gradation of penalties and more mandatory minimum sentences to put an end to lax justice and restore public confidence. The system should offer more chances of rehabilitation to a repeat offender who has committed the crime of breaking and entering than to a violent criminal.
A criminal convicted three times of violent crimes against a woman—assault, uttering threats, sexual assault, procuring, harassment or breaching conditions—should be severely punished. The first offence could attract a mandatory minimum sentence of two years, the second of five years and the third of ten years.
“Netflix” sentences should not be allowed under the law. The legislator should take firm action against prolific offenders, who are overrepresented in certain communities, who have been convicted four times of crimes against the person, or who have ignored the rehabilitation opportunities offered by the system. There are two possible options: release after a fourth conviction, but with a long-term offender label, or prioritizing the protection of the public, which means imprisonment for a very long time. A violent criminal who has committed crimes against the person and has breached their release conditions three times needs to be kept behind bars to ensure the protection of the public.
Legislators must no longer be satisfied with just managing the risk on the backs of communities. They must prioritize the rights of victims like Gabie Renaud.