Status of Women Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm obviously running out of time in this last round.

Ms. Uhlman, I would ask you to answer my question in 30 seconds, because I have another one to ask afterwards. You mentioned Bill C-5 in your opening remarks. I've had discussions with my colleague, the justice critic, and he's done everything he could to split that bill. However, he didn't have the government's ear, particularly when it came to removing crimes against women from the bill.

Why might it have been important to work together, at least to remove crimes against women? Would maintaining minimum sentences for crimes against women have helped your aunt? When we say that the government didn't listen to us, it's because it didn't want to split the bill.

[Esther Uhlman]

Theoretically, if there had been some sort of mandatory minimum sentencing for my aunt's killer, he would have been monitored or he would have been in jail or he would have been in some system that was monitoring him so that he could not commit this crime against my aunt and my family.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

[Esther Uhlman]

Thank you.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Boisvenu, I have a comment first and then a question.

In your Bill S-205, you talked about reducing the good behaviour commitment period from two years to 12 months. We've seen the effects. During that time, criminals can be very vindictive. That's where it can become dangerous, because animosity towards an ex-spouse can persist. So we don't understand why that period was reduced that way in Bill S‑205.

You also mentioned that one of the major problems with the justice system is a culture of postponement. Shouldn't we start by setting an example at the federal level? Why are there so many judicial vacancies? When we talk about labour shortages and the importance of giving the justice system tools but the government is dragging its feet on filling those judicial positions, what message does that send with respect to this culture of postponement in the justice system?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

I think there are currently over 80 judicial vacancies on the Superior Court.

I would like to answer a question that was asked earlier. Quebec provides legal support to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, but it's only advice. Our justice system should have three components: the defence, the Crown and the victim accompanied by his or her lawyer, as in France.

Both parties should have the same rights. For example, a victim would also have to be able to appeal a decision and question its validity. The French system is very balanced in that regard. There, the victim is represented, in addition to the prosecution and the criminal defence. In the Canadian justice system, victims aren't represented; they are only witnesses.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Is that included in Bill S-255, the one you introduced?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

When a man has a criminal record and commits a femicide, it will be considered first-degree murder. A femicide is always the result of an ongoing violent situation. Femicide must be considered as premeditated murder.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Folks, this concludes our panel for—

Oh, Leah, pardon me.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Oh, my goodness. Did you see the daggers?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Leah, you have the floor for two and a half minutes. Please proceed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My final question actually goes to you, Senator.

I was interested in what you said about short sentences, and that in the case of short sentences, we need to look at rehabilitation. I'm thinking about, for example, restorative justice.

Part of the reason I say that is that I was trained on how to train incarcerated persons. I taught in university with students on the outside and with students on the inside at the Grand Valley Institution, which, in fact, has been in the news recently. My observation from that training was that you can't teach pro-social behaviour in an anti-social environment.

Our goal is, of course, to eradicate violence. The whole point of this is to end gender-based violence. I'm wondering if you could share a little bit more of your thoughts on rehabilitation programs potentially being a better option for short sentences.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

In cases of domestic violence, we have to deal with repeat offenders, that is, offenders who are at their third or fourth victim. We have to go after them.

With respect to domestic violence, as soon as a 22- or 23-year-old appears before a judge, the latter must immediately order him to undergo therapy. Even though this is the first time that this offender has come before the court, he must always be required to take therapy rather than wait for him to attack more victims. In the past, we used to do the same thing for drinking and driving: A man would go before the judge three, four, five times, but we waited for him to get completely drunk and kill someone. In cases of domestic violence, action must be taken immediately, at the first opportunity, because violent behaviour has usually around for a long time.

In Quebec, the average number of prison stays for a criminal is eight. If we don't intervene quickly, that is, as soon as they appear in court, these criminals will clog up our justice system.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My concern is that there's a push against this. For shorter sentences, what concerns me is if somebody is incarcerated for two years, which have a tendency to increase violent behaviours, they're let out with no therapy and they're more dangerous. Would you agree with that in shorter cases? I'm not talking about repeat offences, but....

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

I was always told that I was tough on crime. I'm being tough on repeat offenders.

Everyone is entitled to a first chance. However, I believe that, when a criminal faces a judge for the first time, that opportunity must come with responsibilities, which isn't currently the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Okay, thank you.

Perfect.

I will try this again.

Thank you all very much. That does officially conclude our panel for today.

I'd certainly like to offer a heartfelt thank you to all of the witnesses for their sensitive testimony.

If I could have the members hold on for just a minute, I would also like to remind the witnesses that if you were asked any questions that you didn't have an opportunity to respond to, please feel free to submit any written responses to the clerk.

Lastly, before we adjourn the meeting, I have a minute's worth of housekeeping.

Today is Wednesday, November 20. On Monday the 25th, we will have our sixth meeting on gender-based violence and femicides. We have more witnesses than we have space for, so is it the will of the room to bump the meeting on the 27th? On the Wednesday, we will have half of the meeting with the group of Ukrainian parliamentarians. For the second half, instead of doing drafting instructions, do you want to host the additional witnesses who are willing to...? We would then have had six and a half meetings for the study.

Are we good with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Excuse me, Chair. I had my hand up, but I wasn't sure if you saw me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

One of the witnesses I'd really like to hear from is the ombudsperson for victims of crime. I had submitted his name as a witness. I'm hoping that if we do an extra meeting, he can be included.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I will check back. I know there were definitely several more. Those who submitted names were trying to get as many in as possible. I can confirm who they were, but I know there were two or three that we weren't able to fit into Monday's meeting. Therefore, I think it's the will of the room that we will go ahead with the extra half meeting on Wednesday. That's perfect.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

The meeting is adjourned.