Status of Women Committee on Oct. 29th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excuse me one moment. We have a problem with the translation. Let's just check.

Is the sound okay?

The translators are saying the sound is not good enough for them to translate.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Did Mr. Deramond do the sound test before the meeting started?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, the test was done, and it was acceptable then.

Speak for a little bit.

[Didier Deramond]

Okay. Can you hear me better?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Mr. Deramond, can you continue speaking?

[Didier Deramond]

(Inaudible—Editor) Absolutely. As I was saying, further to what Ms. Riendeau said….

Can you hear me better?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

No, unfortunately, between the Internet and the voice quality, it's not good enough. IT will call you, and we'll move along. We still have a minute for Madame Ménard.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll come back to that question, then.

Mr. Brochet, the government has just introduced Bill C‑14, which introduces new provisions on reverse onuses for assault and sexual assault charges. That explicitly includes choking, suffocation and strangulation.

From your point of view, is that a worthwhile avenue to better protect survivors going forward?

[Pierre Brochet]

Certainly. We very much welcome the initiative, both across Canada and in the province of Quebec.

It's an initiative that we had even already recommended in Canada-wide resolutions. Reverse onus helps the justice system a lot. In fact, it sends a clear message. It tells people that, when they commit those acts, they're going to have to be accountable and show us that they should be released. This is excellent news, then, and we welcome it very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Riendeau, Mr. Michel and Mr. Brochet, I'm going to start with something that your three testimonies had in common. You practically started your opening remarks by talking about the importance of criminalizing coercive control.

The last Parliament had a bill that dealt with this. The committee also conducted a study on the importance of criminalizing coercive control.

To help us understand how important that is, can you talk about the concrete changes it could make?

[Louise Riendeau]

It's clear to us that criminalizing coercive control would make it easier to recognize what victims have experienced. Right now, intervention is in response to isolated incidents.

A Belgian prosecutor once said that domestic violence wasn't a photo, but a film. If all the manifestations that women experience were taken into account, they would feel more heard by the system.

It would also give police officers some leverage. They often say that the system doesn't work, but that they can't use offences. Mr. Brochet will probably be able to say more on that than I can.

If the umbrella of coercive control were to include not only what are already considered to be offences, but also manifestations that aren't, I think we could take more action, and act in advance, by preventing the risks associated with coercive control.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Michel and Mr. Brochet, I see you nodding. Do you want to add anything?

[Pierre Brochet]

I completely agree with the last comment.

Domestic violence is a story, not one event. We need analytical points that help us understand the real situation we're facing. That would probably also help us justify certain detentions and even stricter conditions. This isn't a matter of considering one slap in the face or one event like that.

An analysis makes it possible to cover all the coercive control measures used by the suspect to control their victim. With that in hand, we present the court with a completely different case. If those measures are also made into offences, that becomes really important for the court to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Mr. Michel, the floor is yours.

[Patrick Michel]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If time permits, I'd like to clarify one thing. Although coercive control isn't criminalized in Canada yet, it's been incorporated into the practices of the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, or DPCP. We've even adopted a definition. Prosecutors have to take the phenomenon of coercive control into account when assessing the evidence in the case.

Prosecutors already receive basic training on the concept of coercive control, but we're going to train them more on this phenomenon.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That was indeed a request from the “Rebâtir la confiance” report on rebuilding trust in Quebec. That report contains a long series of recommendations to try to eliminate the scourge of intimate partner violence. The DPCP would have been part of that study.

Ms. Riendeau, at the end of the Liberals' turn to speak, there was talk of reversing the onus. From your perspective, from the perspective of shelters, what do you think of that?

[Louise Riendeau]

We think that, in the case of repeat offenders and people who haven't complied with the conditions imposed on them, the reversing the onus is an important measure.

The offender will have to prove that they have a release plan and that it doesn't pose any issues for the victims' safety. That way of doing things will allow for a better analysis of situations. It will also give the justice system a better handle on making the right decisions.

In short, we're absolutely in favour of reversing the onus in the case of repeat offenders or people who breach their conditions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Brochet, Mr. Michel, do you have anything to add?

[Pierre Brochet]

I don't personally have anything to add.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

I'll quickly ask one last question. Should the much-discussed risk assessment be mandatory before release or recognizance?

[Louise Riendeau]

I don't know if it should be mandatory, but certainly the court should definitely be given the power to order it so that we don't end up in a situation like the one we're in right now, where some lawyers are discouraging their clients from accepting that assessment. I think it provides much more insight and makes it possible to determine the possible release conditions and whether release is desirable.

The assessment enables us to know who we're dealing with and gives us a better perspective beyond simply noting that we're dealing with an offence. It's appropriate to consider the circumstances and context in which the offence was committed, as well as the temperament of the person who committed it. It enables us to continue using discretionary measures to adapt to each situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Madame Larouche, that's your time.

We're now going to Mr. Brock for five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance and participation on this important study.

My first question would be to Mr. Michel.

Mr. Michel, I'm the current Conservative shadow minister for justice and the attorney general. I was a former Crown counsel in the province of Ontario for almost two decades. I thank you for what you are doing and for your appearance today.

I had the opportunity of meeting with the Quebec justice minister this past summer, Mr. Jolin-Barrette. I had a frank discussion with him as to what the province would like to see by way of bail reform.

I also had a wonderful presentation by the good folks at the CAVAC Centre in downtown Montreal. I was aware of the vertical prosecution system, the merits behind that, and how that alleviates many of the concerns that victims have in terms of not being believed, not being trusted and not feeling part of the system. Thank you for leading the way in the province of Quebec. It's a model that should be shared across Canada.

I'd like to get your thoughts on Bill C‑14. I understand that you probably had a brief opportunity to take a look at it. It was only introduced last Thursday, and it is specifically on the issue of sexual assault. You must be profoundly disappointed, as I was, when I found out that the provisions for sexual assault in terms of taking away the ability of applying for a conditional sentence only apply when the Crown proceeds by indictment.

If the Crown proceeds by summary conviction, the vast majority of sexual assault prosecutions will proceed by way of summary conviction, at least for the province of Ontario. I trust the province of Quebec is not much different. This government left out a significant pathway to protect victims by now allowing their perpetrators, their offenders, from serving a sentence by way of house arrest.

What are your thoughts, please?

[Patrick Michel]

Thank you for your question, sir.

As I said in my opening remarks, I want to offer the perspective of the experience of prosecutors at the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, or DPCP. Since Bill C‑5 was passed, we've been implementing the new conditional sentence provisions and the increased availability of conditional sentences.

One thing we see in the application of conditional sentences or community sentences for sexual assault and domestic violence is that the reintroduction of conditional sentences enables us to see that deterrence and denunciation principles, recognized as predominant in sentencing for domestic and sexual violence—