Status of Women Committee on Oct. 29th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and the witnesses here today. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those who are participating by Zoom, you'll click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you can select the appropriate channel at the bottom of your screen: floor, English or French. For those in the room, of course, you know how to use the earpieces.

If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For those on Zoom, you can use the “raise hand” function. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Thank you, all, for your 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 want to provide this trigger warning. We will be discussing violence against women. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If any participants feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk. For all witnesses and for members of Parliament, it's important to recognize that these are difficult discussions, so let's try to be compassionate in our conversations.

I would like to welcome the witnesses, who are joining us by video conference.

From the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, we're joined by Pierre Brochet, president, and Didier Deramond, executive director.

From the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, we're joined by Patrick Michel, director, and Audrey Mercier‑Turgeon, assistant director.

From the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, we're joined by Louise Riendeau, co‑lead for political affairs.

Before starting the first round of questions, each organization will have five minutes to speak. We'll begin with the Association des directeurs de police du Québec.

Mr. Brochet, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Pierre Brochet, President, Association des directeurs de police du Québec]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Pierre Brochet. I'm a vice‑president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and president of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec. I'm joined by Didier Deramond, executive director of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec.

I would first like to sincerely thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women for giving us the opportunity to speak about ways to improve section 810 of the Criminal Code to ensure the safety of women and children.

Over the past two years, in many cases, an intimate partner or former partner has threatened to physically harm the other partner. In most cases, the person threatened was a woman. These threats often occurred despite the enforcement of section 810 and all the conditions imposed on the perpetrator.

This means that your current work is vital to improving the safety of women and children across the country. The legislative environment is changing rapidly. The country's police forces must lend their assistance through consultation activities such as today's meeting.

I'll cut to the chase. Certain provisions of the Criminal Code amended by Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75 need further clarification to boost the public's sense of safety. I'm referring specifically to mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, particularly in cases of domestic violence.

As the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police already pointed out, clearly mandatory minimum sentences for firearms crimes directly affect an individual's decision to use a weapon. However, the number of crimes committed in cases of domestic violence—in which three out of four victims are women—continues to rise. Legislators must heed the desperation of women and take measures to curb these crimes and build public confidence. They must also take action on legislative measures that allow, under certain conditions, individuals to remain in their homes while awaiting trial or during proceedings for a serious crime.

This brings us to another legislative provision that absolutely must come into effect. This provision concerns coercive control. We're calling for coercive control to become a criminal offence under the Criminal Code as soon as possible. The devastating effects of coercive control on victims are well documented. These effects include isolation, dehumanization and loss of freedom. Coercive control also increases the risk of serious violence.

In 2021, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution stating that, on average, 70 victims are murdered each year by their intimate partners. The resolution also noted that the proliferation of technology and social media means that many victims of intimate partner violence who have taken steps to end a relationship may not be free from the controlling behaviour of their partner. These types of situations clearly show the complexity of police work. Maintaining a supportive relationship, accompanying some victims to their family homes, following up on cases and answering victims' frequent questions all play an integral role in the daily work of investigators.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police's resolution also noted that the Canadian criminal justice system treats intimate partner violence as an episodic event, without recognizing repetitive tactics of abuse that include exploitation, isolation and the micro regulation of everyday life. This resolution was an opportunity to reiterate that police officers have a responsibility to determine when intimate partner violence is present, including coercive control.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police concluded its resolution by asking the federal government to pass legislation to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that former intimate partners, regardless of living arrangements, are also covered. The police officers will then have the legislative tools and means of prevention needed to deal with perpetrators and protect women's lives.

In conclusion, significant progress has certainly been made in provincial and federal legislation to combat domestic violence.

Rest assured that we remain available for any further consultation on this matter. We also remain available for more extensive discussions on the implementation of the legislative measures adopted by the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Mr. Deramond, I can see you now. Welcome.

Mr. Michel, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Patrick Michel, Director, Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I want to thank the committee members for their interest in hearing from the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, or DPCP, in connection with their work.

I'll introduce myself briefly. My name is Patrick Michel. I'm the director of the DPCP. I'm joined by Audrey Mercier‑Turgeon, assistant director of the DPCP. Her work focuses on institutional development, particularly on policies, programs and practices for supporting and protecting women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence.

In short, the DPCP's role is to act as a prosecutor on behalf of the Quebec government in all criminal cases in Quebec. There are over 800 DPCP prosecutors throughout the province.

We appreciate this opportunity today to share some of our specific practices regarding domestic violence and to answer your questions.

I want to clarify the limits of my involvement here. Given our status as public prosecutors, we must exercise restraint with regard to legislation or opportunities to amend legislation. We're here to share our experience and some of our practices in order to contribute to your deliberations on possible amendments to legislation or to the review of the proposed amendments in Bill C‑14.

I'll now touch on a few aspects of our practices. The DPCP prosecutors are subject to guidelines. We have specific guidelines for cases involving domestic violence and sexual assault. The general rule—I would even say the cardinal rule—underpinning these guidelines and practices dictates that, from the beginning to the end of the proceedings, the safety of victims must guide our approach to handling legal cases. This cardinal rule must serve as a guide for prosecutors at every stage of the legal process.

In Quebec, we practise what we call “vertical prosecution”. This means that, from the beginning to the end of the legal proceedings, a single prosecutor handles a case involving a victim. The objective is twofold. First, the goal is to develop, nurture and maintain a relationship of trust with victims to encourage their involvement in the legal process until the end of the proceedings. Second, the goal is to avoid double or even triple victimization by making victims recount their suffering to more than one prosecutor. Of course, there may be exceptions to this rule, particularly in cases where prosecutors are involuntarily absent. However, in the vast majority of cases, the rule is to apply the vertical prosecution principle. This means assigning one prosecutor to a victim until the end of the legal proceedings.

In Quebec, we also use post‑charge meetings. As is the case in New Brunswick and British Columbia, we give pre‑charge approval. Police officers don't file charges directly with the court. A prosecutor must first pre‑approve the charges. Once a prosecution has been approved, we quickly meet with the victim of domestic violence in order to, once again, establish a relationship of trust. We explain the requirements of the legal process and inform the victim of any arrangements that can be made during the proceedings to make it easier to testify in general and to navigate the legal process.

We've also developed other practices that I can discuss in more detail when answering your questions. These practices mainly concern the assessment of homicide risk at the interim release stage. The DPCP prosecutors also help victims transition through the separation process by allowing them to terminate their residential lease when they wish to leave their partner. We also step in when a victim needs to obtain authorization for the care of a child whom she had with her abusive partner.

These are all kinds of ways for the prosecutor to become involved both inside and outside the legal process.

At the DPCP, we've also implemented—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you. I'm sorry. That's your time.

[Patrick Michel]

That's okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You can wrap up by answering the questions.

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

[Louise Riendeau, Co-Lead, Political Affairs, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

Good afternoon.

I want to thank the committee members for giving us the opportunity to speak about measures to ensure the safety of women.

The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale consists of 47 houses that help women fleeing domestic violence. The Regroupement works with a number of partners to improve the justice system's approach to this type of violence.

Let me start by pointing out that intimate partner violence is a specific type of crime. For a long time, it was justified and legitimized by the right of men to subject their spouse to their will. Attitudes have changed, but some men still feel that they can legitimately control their partners.

When an initial charge is brought against a violent spouse, or when a request is made to apply section 810 of the Criminal Code, the spouse will have repeatedly assaulted his partner. These assaults may be considered offences or various forms of coercive control. These assaults aren't isolated incidents. They constitute a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour over time to establish dominance. Criminal records alone don't help to predict the risks to the victim's safety. To obtain a more accurate picture of this type of crime and to take into account all acts that deprive victims of their freedom and safety, we're calling for the creation of a coercive control offence.

Ultimately, the decision to arrest, detain, prosecute and sentence an offender can't be based solely on the offence committed. The decision must take the context into account. A victim of domestic violence may assault her intimate partner in an act of self‑defence. A spouse may slap his partner after losing his temper during a heated argument. A controlling man may deprive his partner of resources, isolate her, impose rules on her, threaten her when she fails to comply and strike her to show that he means business. These three individuals don't pose the same risks and shouldn't be treated the same way by the justice system.

At the Regroupement, we believe that police officers should receive better training so that they can properly identify and document the history of the relationship. That way, they can differentiate between conflict and coercive control and identify the primary aggressor when a counter‑complaint is filed.

In Quebec, the public safety department has implemented a number of measures at the interim release stage to ensure the safety of victims. These measures include offender assessments, the use of electronic monitoring bracelets, a follow‑up service for accused individuals and a residential community centre accommodation program. However, these programs are used only if the offender appears in court while in custody.

Unfortunately, many police officers, likely owing to the principle of restraint, feel compelled to release violent spouses. We believe that better training in identifying and documenting the grounds of public interest would help them justify keeping more perpetrators of domestic violence in custody until their court appearance. This would make it possible to offer an assessment.

To supplement this training, it would be helpful to create a clear guideline, such as the one included in the recent Bill C‑14. This guideline would state that the principle of restraint doesn't require the release of an accused person if the detention is justified for the safety of the victim.

One limitation of Quebec's program for assessing domestic violence offenders is that the assessment remains voluntary. We believe that giving the court the option of ordering this type of assessment, as proposed in Bill C‑225, would be an avenue worth exploring. The assessment plays a key role in decisions about release, conditions, sentencing and the appropriateness of applying section 810 of the Criminal Code as a preventive measure.

Another factor to consider in ensuring victim safety and public trust is the handling of breaches of conditions. These include conditions set out in a promise to appear, conditions of release or conditions related to section 810 of the Criminal Code. Individuals who violate the conditions imposed by the police or the court should appear in court and carry the burden of proving that their release won't endanger the safety of their victims.

To assess this evidence, all justice system stakeholders must receive training. As we said, a criminal record isn't always enough evidence in cases of domestic violence.

We know that 90% of homicide cases involved coercive control. However, we also know that, in some cases, the homicide or attempted homicide was the first act of physical violence.

We believe that these measures can be useful. However, resources must also be provided to institutions such as police forces and prosecution authorities, and judges must be made aware of the issue. Everyone needs access to these training programs and the staff to carry them out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Now we are going to start our rounds of questions. Each party gets a certain number of minutes.

I will be very helpful. When there's one minute left, you'll see the yellow card go up. When there are just 30 seconds left, you'll see the red card go up. Then I will, ever so gently, cut you off at that time and move on to the next person.

We're going to start with the Conservatives and Madame Vien for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's my turn to welcome the guests. I would like to thank them for accepting our invitation.

My first question is for you, Mr. Michel.

I'll provide some context. I fully understand the clarification in your remarks. However, we can't pretend that these things didn't happen and weren't said.

I'll quote Simon Jolin‑Barrette: “We work so hard in Quebec to combat sexual violence that it's unacceptable for [these types of individuals] to serve their sentences at home because the judge must grant the stay in the absence of a criminal record or based on the facts of the case.”

One of the prosecutors working for you said the following: “Right now, Justin Trudeau [and Justice Minister] David Lametti probably have to answer to victims of sexual assault.” He added that, as a Crown prosecutor, he's now seeing a step backwards in sentencing for sexual assault. In a recent article by Patrick Lagacé, an anonymous prosecutor spoke candidly and passionately about these issues. A motion was passed in the National Assembly. Prosecutors from other parts of Canada and premiers have also spoken out.

Are your prosecutors discouraged by our constant revolving door system? I haven't mentioned the murders of Ms. Renaud or Ms. McCourt, which happened quite recently.

What are your thoughts on this? How are morale levels? How can we resolve this?

[Patrick Michel]

Thank you for your question.

Your examples of public or anonymous statements from prosecutors show one thing. Prosecutors are human beings. All human beings have emotions. Even though we must demonstrate independence, neutrality and objectivity in carrying out our duties, we're bound to feel discouraged at times and to react in this way.

That said, the statements made by these prosecutors don't reflect the positions of the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales.

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

Last week, the Minister of Justice, Mr. Fraser, introduced a bill. This bill actually acknowledged that a crime rate of 41% in Canada is quite high.

When we look at Bill C‑14, we can see that it maintains the principle of restraint for parole. This principle gives criminals, even some repeat offenders, the opportunity to serve their sentences at home. We noted that four times more sex offenders were able to serve their sentences at home.

Does that worry you?

[Patrick Michel]

Without necessarily commenting on the content of the bill, I can say that we appreciate efforts to adjust the implementation of the principle of restraint, in particular by putting priority safety considerations into perspective.

That's my answer to your question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Michel.

Mr. Brochet, thank you for joining us today.

When he appeared before the committee in fall 2024, the Peterborough police chief, Stuart Betts, said that he felt quite discouraged. He described the system as a revolving door.

You seem a bit concerned about the situation, particularly the experiences of women. You're keenly aware of the coercive control issue.

In his press release last week, the Minister of Justice basically told the provinces that he was making changes and introducing a bill, but that they must provide the money and resources needed to make the system work on the ground.

Let's assume that more people will end up behind bars. Will you have enough resources? Will the system have enough to handle the situation?

[Pierre Brochet]

Regarding the first part of your question, I would say that we welcome Bill C‑14, sponsored by Mr. Fraser.

Since the implementation of the principle of judicial restraint in recent years, police operations have been completely transformed. Police officers are actually complaining about this. Every day, we see people being released under this principle, even though we're sure that they shouldn't be released.

I'll give you the example of a recent case where a judge released an individual who then failed to comply with the conditions of release. Given my 40 years as a police officer, I can say that, in these cases, the person routinely goes back into custody to wait for their court appearance. Now, they're almost routinely released. Where does that leave us? The person is released despite the condition of release already ordered by a judge.

When it comes to resources—

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

Do you really think that this will change?

[Pierre Brochet]

I think that it will help us. It isn't perfect, and we'll see how it works with the stricter control mechanisms. If suspects are detained more frequently, police officers will have less work to do. Right now, their work is repetitive. They arrest the same people over and over again.

For example, they arrest a person in the morning, who is then released on a promise to appear. The next day, they arrest the person again, and he's released again on a promise to appear. These repeated incidents create a workload of their own. Some domestic violence cases may require police involvement six times in one month. That said, there might have been only one or two incidents of police involvement had other measures been in place. Ultimately, I think that it's a good start.

Furthermore, the current economic situation isn't easy for Quebec and the municipalities. We certainly can't expect to have many more police resources in this situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you, Mr. Brochet.

Ms. Ménard, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank you all for coming. Your comments have been informative and valuable. Thank you for taking the time this afternoon to discuss this issue, which we're obviously concerned about.

I'll start by asking Ms. Riendeau my question.

Good afternoon, Ms. Riendeau. Thank you for joining us.

I want to check whether you still agree with what you said. I've heard you explain your vision for combatting gender‑based violence. You said that we need to come up with a type of “three‑pronged approach” that involves legislative action, but remains focused on prevention and support for survivors.

Are you still advocating for this three‑pronged approach?

[Louise Riendeau]

Absolutely. I think the justice system's involvement is important. It serves to send a message not only to victims, but also to perpetrators of violence and to society. However, the justice system gets involved when assaults have unfortunately already happened.

We think that we really need to work upstream with young people and the general population to change mindsets. We want men to no longer feel that the use of sexual or domestic violence against women is legitimate. It's also really important to help victims who are dealing with the consequences of what they've experienced.

It's obviously important to look at the big picture.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

My question is still for you, Ms. Riendeau.

This summer, we were both at a round table initiated by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. You presented us with a very interesting initiative by the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale about training. That seems to be the crux of the matter for you, in addition to the other projects you're working on. Could you tell us about what you've implemented and the benefits of such training for those who have taken it?

What demographic did you reach? What changes took place?

[Louise Riendeau]

We're convinced that most actors in the justice system are well intentioned and want to protect victims. However, they sometimes lack training to understand all the nuances that various manifestations of coercive control can have. That's why we've worked with police services in Quebec, with the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, as well as with other actors to try to raise awareness about all forms of coercive control and the right ways to work with victims so that they can move through the justice system and obtain justice and protection.

To date, we've trained about 12,000 professionals in Quebec, including about 5,000 police officers, and that work is ongoing. I was talking earlier about training to better distinguish a spousal conflict from domestic violence, for example, or training to better discern and document the public interest grounds that, despite the principle of restraint, could make it possible to keep a spouse detained until their appearance. Yes, I think it's important to take that approach.

I also believe that training is the key aspect to focus on. Training would make it possible for a lot of people to work well with victims and, if some are not co-operative, it would then be possible to turn to directives. I think that most people want to do a good job and that this is a condition for achieving that.

Still, it's important to give organizations the resources they need to be able to take on this training.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Riendeau.

Mr. Deramond, you're obviously very close to your personnel.

Can you testify about the effect of training on police forces? I'm thinking of the kind of training that was designed by the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, for example.

What are you seeing in concrete terms? How does the police approach change?

[Didier Deramond, Chief Executive Officer, Association des directeurs de police du Québec]

Thank you for your question.

Indeed, as Ms. Riendeau was able to mention, training helps raise awareness, inform police officers and prevent incidents, which is the key—

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

Chair, there's no interpretation.