Status of Women Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

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

I have a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. For those here by video conference, you can select your language of choice at the bottom. For those in the room, you can do the same on your machines. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I will signal everyone with a yellow card when there is one minute left and with a red card when there are 30 seconds left. Then I will ever so gently cut you off.

Before we begin, I want to provide a trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to intimate partner violence. 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 all members of Parliament, let's recognize that these are very difficult discussions. Let's try to be compassionate in our conversations.

For the first hour, I want to welcome Frank Caputo, member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and the sponsor of Bill C-225. It's appropriate that this bill is coming to this committee, since we are the ones who asked for legislation of this kind.

Welcome. I will yield the floor to you for your opening statement of five minutes, and then we'll proceed to rounds of questions.

Please go ahead.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, thank you to my colleagues.

Thank you all for having this bill come to the status of women committee. For those watching, or for those who may not be aware, it was initially referred to the justice committee.

It is my honour to be here with you.

There are a few people I want to recognize today, some of whom are present. I want to start with some prominent members of Bailey McCourt's family, who inspired parts of this bill: her mom Karen, her dad Shane, her stepmom Trish and her aunt Debbie, who is present here today.

There is also the other victim, who survived but with significant injuries, Carrie. I told Carrie that we would be doing this today. She and I were exchanging text messages, so to Carrie, we wish you an ongoing recovery. I can't imagine the trauma you are enduring. Sometimes there are victims beyond the intimate partners, whether it be a bystander, a friend, as in this case, or even the community children who have to see the repercussions that reverberate both physically and emotionally.

I also want to introduce Flo Bellman and Paul Henderson, who are here today and who shared their story with me. I believe I was in a Kal Tire getting my tires changed. It was a Saturday, and I had to step into the corridor because I was going to shed some tears.

Countless others have told me their stories. I can't name them all, sometimes due to confidentiality and privacy. Due to time constraints, I can't tell the committee, Madam Chair and others, how many people have contacted me to say thank you, and this isn't just to me; this is to us.

There is one anecdote that I will relate. Intimate partner violence often centres on women; it's an offence that impacts predominantly women. I spoke earlier about the reverberation. I recently had a young man, probably 19 years old, literally start crying on my shoulder because of what his mom had gone through.

This is a highly relevant bipartisan bill, in my view, and I thank everyone who has helped us get it here. I thank Kelly Favro, one person who comes to mind. We come from different sides of the political spectrum, yet she has been unrelenting in her advocacy. She is somebody whose advocacy moves mountains, who is not afraid to call us all out and say, “You need to do this”, and who is a survivor of sexual violence, as she has shared with us as parliamentarians.

Thank you, Kelly, and all those with you who have helped.

I want to remember Angel Fehr. That name probably doesn't ring a bell to most people, but that is the last homicide I prosecuted where the victim was killed as a result of intimate partner violence. I believe Angel was in her early thirties. Her intimate partner killed her and literally put her in a barrel of cement. It was an undercover police operation that yielded that, and I thank the police officers for it. My heart goes out to Angel. Her abuser, her killer, is now on parole.

I meant to go into the history of the bill, and I'll do that very quickly.

This bill is a bill I wrote in the 44th Parliament that I didn't table. Over the summer, there was the tragic killing of Bailey McCourt. The substance of the bill was present, but I updated it to include a provision that says there should be a presumption of first-degree murder when somebody kills their intimate partner. The time has come for this type of provision.

For far too long, as with many sex offences against children, intimate partner violence has percolated below the surface, with society being seemingly afraid to talk about it. We're not afraid anymore; now is the time. Let's do it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much, Mr. Caputo.

Now we'll go into our first round of questions.

We will begin with Madame Vien for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Caputo, thank you for joining us today.

We are very pleased that you chose to have our committee consider your Bill C‑225, because our committee is very reactive and does a lot of studies on issues related to women's safety. We are trying to understand the socio-economic and political contexts that explain why women most often find themselves in very difficult situations, and sometimes with no way out, as is the case for women in Canada who are murdered.

We don't have the exact number, but if I'm not mistaken, about 200 were murdered in Canada in 2025. A woman is murdered every 48 hours: That's what I read on the Government of Canada website. In Quebec, six women have been murdered since the beginning of the year. These may be cases of femicide. Right now, things are not going very well for women's safety in this country.

Did that context guide you in developing this bill? Will Bill C‑225 truly improve women's safety?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Thank you for that very important question.

What I said in my opening remarks is that this issue has been below the surface. My former career, which you've probably all heard far too often, was as a prosecutor, but I was also a parole officer before then, and I dealt with federal offenders who were serving sentences of two years or more. I can tell you that intimate partner violence, when it was present on a file, was so different from other parts of violence.

You say it's the context that motivates this. There's something about intimate partner violence, because there is a dependence. People typically sleep next to the person. They are often intimate with the person. They share bank accounts. They know all of their fragilities. Anybody here who's been in a long-term relationship knows that their partner will know exactly what is difficult and what pushes their buttons. These types of offences are therefore marked, oftentimes, when they are abusive, with significant manipulation, dependence and things of that nature.

When I was a prosecutor, we would have, oftentimes, one victim a day come to our counter at the Crown counsel office and say, “I want to drop charges.”

It's okay to want justice. That's what we have to say to victims. This is something that, as context, I've just seen far too much, and frankly, I've had enough of standing on the sidelines as a legislator to let this offence go by without further discussion.

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

That's a great credit to you and a great credit to Parliament, because I think all parliamentarians will endorse this bill.

I have a more technical question for you as a former prosecutor.

Some people may be concerned that, if the murder of an intimate partner were now considered first-degree murder, it would remove an entire possible defence for the other party. What do you say to those people? For example, a woman could kill her partner in self-defence and it would be considered first-degree murder.

Will there be room for nuance? How should we understand that? We're not legal experts here.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Thank you for the question, Mrs. Vien.

There will certainly be room for nuances, but this is what I'll say. Putting aside the pretrial, criminal cases have two elements generally—well, three, I suppose. You have the pretrial, which is disclosure and things like that. You receive the documents and any applications. Then you have the trial. That is where you decide innocence or guilt.

You talk about first-degree murder for somebody who's innocent. Well, if you're innocent, you will not be convicted of first-degree murder.

The issue of whether or not it is a second-degree murder happens when you are convicted of murder. It's either first or second, and right now it would be second. That is an issue of sentencing; it is not an issue of conviction. We are strictly here saying that when you kill an intimate partner, the sentencing that kicks in, not at the trial level, would be with respect to first-degree murder.

I understand that there are concerns around this. My view is that we should address those concerns.

If innocent people, innocent women, are going to jail, I don't think it's right that they go to jail under second-degree murder, as it is right now. I think every single person in this room should be outraged if that is the case. We have to address that if it is a concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Nathan for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank Mr. Caputo for bringing forward this important legislation and working closely with families and survivors. Regardless of what party we represent, there are issues that should not divide us, and I'm glad we agree on this. That's why we're all here today. This is an important bill. This bill would automatically classify all murders of an intimate partner as first-degree murder.

Mr. Caputo, we've heard concerns from several experts and frontline organizations—including shelters supporting women fleeing domestic violence, the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund—that this approach could unintentionally capture situations where a woman kills her abusive partner while acting in self-defence.

Would you be open to amending the bill so that first-degree murder would apply specifically in cases where the accused engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour towards their partner? As we know, victims don't engage that way. This could help ensure that the law targets abusers while protecting survivors. Some women's advocacy organizations have called for this.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Chair, I speak through you when I answer these questions.

Thank you, MP Nathan, for your question.

I'll go back to what I said earlier and answer the crux of the question. Yes, I am more than open to amendments, and I'll be very candid: These amendments have been discussed with the Minister of Justice first-hand. He and I have had face-to-face conversations about this.

People outside the parliamentary bubble might only see, on TV, question period, when we're really going at it. To anybody watching at home, we actually generally get along. A lot of the time, we have to put our differences aside on major issues, and this is an issue that unifies us.

I've spoken at length with the Minister of Justice. I thank him for speaking with me, and I thank his staff. I think those amendments will come, and they will come to this committee.

With respect to the issue of unintentional incarceration, I do not want to see a battered spouse, out of self-defence, serve a day in jail if they are not guilty. I cannot be much clearer than that.

Let's say this bill never passes. Under the current regime, people are still liable for murder if they are unintentionally captured. Does that make sense? It's just second-degree murder. Second-degree murder holds a life sentence. If the issue is that we are unintentionally capturing people for first-degree murder—I put this to the committee—are we okay with unintentionally capturing people for second-degree murder when a person is innocent? This has been expressed to me, and it's something I lose sleep over, frankly. If somebody is innocent, they shouldn't be found guilty of second-degree murder.

When I went through law school, I was taught a case called Lavallee. It's the very prominent case of an intimate partner who was acquitted based on her psychological...based on what had occurred and her perception of a threat. Even if somebody might say that the threat wasn't immediate, it's about the cycle of violence that we so often see.

That would be my answer to both of the elements you asked about.

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

I'm sure you know it's widely understood that proving self-defence can be very challenging in court, particularly in intimate partner violence situations, where survivors often do not report abuse because of manipulation from their partners. Can you speak a bit about that? I know you have experience working in the courts.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Self-defence is a defence the Crown must disprove. Sometimes the accused has to raise a defence. I'm not talking about self-defence there; I'm sorry to be confusing. If self-defence appears on the facts, the Crown has to disprove it.

What I think we need to do is create a culture in which people are not afraid to come forward and are not afraid to avail themselves of the victim services that are available and whatever support is present.

I'll say it for the third time: Somebody who has a valid defence in the form of self-defence is not legally guilty. They should not be legally found guilty if they acted in self-defence.

I hope I'm being very clear on this, because I don't want to conflate first-degree murder with an acquittal. If somebody acts in self-defence, legally they are entitled, generally, to an acquittal.

I'm trying to think of it.... This is for people who, at the trial level, have not been found to have acted in self-defence and have murdered their intimate partner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

It's unusual to also have family members of victims here at committee today.

We know how difficult it is. We offer you our deepest condolences. I can see how emotional you are. Our hearts go out to you.

This is an extremely sensitive topic. We can see it from the emotion in this room. We are here, and we play our role by asking questions. That's our role in this democracy. We are here, in committee, to see how we can improve the bill. That's part of the process.

Mr. Caputo, I'm going to ask you my questions in a very constructive spirit and with all due respect for your work. Let's do it that way. I will jump right in.

For example, I could ask you a bit more about the steps that led you to introduce the bill.

In the course of your consultations, did you consult Quebec groups specialized in domestic violence? Did you have the opportunity to speak with people from shelters and courts specializing in sexual and domestic violence? In Quebec, there are now actually specialized courts, further to the report on rebuilding trust. That report was actually prepared by a non-partisan committee, or a multi-party committee, if you prefer.

Have you had the opportunity to use this approach to understand a few small models in Quebec?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

First of all, thank you for your comments and your thoughts.

I really appreciate what you had to say at the beginning. I believe that we are here, Madame Larouche, in a constructive environment to make what may be a good bill better and to make what may be a very good bill the best. Thank you for your comments.

I will be very candid. Being from British Columbia and having practised common law rather than civil law, I'm not as familiar with the tribunals you mentioned. I would love to do this, perhaps with you or someone else. It would be a very good use of my time to take some of those resources—perhaps with Madame Vien—and go to Quebec, so I can see these things first-hand.

I believe you asked what the inspiration was for this bill. We've been focusing on the murder element, but one of the things that really bothered me is that right now with the offence of assault, if you assault an intimate partner, it is the exact same charge as punching somebody at a bar. The law right now doesn't distinguish assaulting somebody who is in a relationship of trust, dependence and shared finances.

I believe that's wrong. I believe, frankly, that if a person beats their spouse, that's how their criminal record should read.

That was a primary inspiration. It's from conversations I've had with lawyers, and some judges even. That was something I hadn't touched on.

I'm sorry if I went on too long there.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That's fine. That gives me more information about the research and impact assessment you relied on in proposing these amendments to the Criminal Code. I understand a little more.

Would you be willing to add an explicit provision to protect women who are victims of prolonged domestic violence, in order to prevent any potential unintended consequences of Bill C‑225?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I am open to any amendments that will make this bill better. I spoke earlier about the fact that there are amendments in principle. That's no secret. I don't think I'm letting the cat out of the bag there. There's a general agreement as to those amendments that I would support with the government.

My plan would be to sit down with you, Madame Larouche, and go through those amendments. Hopefully we can have unanimity on those amendments, and perhaps you have amendments that we haven't yet considered that we can take to the government and look at.

As I said, we want to get this bill done, but I want the best possible bill to come from the committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Experts say that longer sentences have not served as a deterrent in domestic violence cases.

Why focus on punishment rather than prevention and services? What would you say to those experts?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

That's a good question.

If you look at sentencing in the Criminal Code, you see that a sentence is based on a number of factors. Denunciation and deterrence are two of those factors. To denounce is to say that we don't agree with this conduct. To deter is to tell other people not to do it.

Frankly, this has gone on far too long, and a lot of people have made that argument. I taught a sentencing class at our local law school. I know I'm short on time, but I think this is an important question.

A lot of people have made the argument that the length of sentences doesn't necessarily deter crime, but when someone takes the life of an intimate partner, I think we have to recognize how much of a problem this is. One of the ways we do that as parliamentarians, who are the ones responsible for setting sentencing, is to say that this offence is so repugnant in the eyes of parliamentarians that we will denounce it by saying someone will spend longer in jail. It's that simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to our second round of questions.

We will go to Ms. Cody for five minutes.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo, for coming today. I want to say thank you for everything you've done with this bill. I know you've invested a great deal of work and personal commitment to it.

In your view, what provision within this bill will have the greatest impact and why?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Cody. I appreciate the question.

That remains to be seen. One thing that doesn't get discussed about this bill is the provision that you would have to go before a judge if convicted of a crime against an intimate partner within the preceding five years. In my experience—and somebody else might have a different experience—normally what happens is that if a person commits an offence and the police are called, they're arrested for that offence. They're put in handcuffs. They might be taken to the detachment or they might just sit in the back of a police car. They're then released by the police officer on conditions. They're literally released from custody. Handcuffs are removed and they're told, “Go on your way. Here's your court date. Here are your conditions.” That happens almost always.

What I would like to do, and part of the reason that we're renaming this “assault of intimate partners”, is to reflect that you have previously abused an intimate partner. You have previously harassed an intimate partner. Somebody looking at your criminal record can say, “Do you know what? Rather than just saying this person is an assaulter, no, they are somebody who abuses their partners.”

The fact that an alleged abuser would have to go before a judge to be released is considered much more serious than being released by a police officer. In fact, peace officers cannot impose the same conditions on release that judges can. It's very important to recognize that. Police appreciate this too, because the system isn't built to bring a lot of people into custody.

We've talked a lot about Bill C-75, and there is common law as well that says a person should be released at the earliest opportunity on the least onerous conditions. If you've previously abused your spouse, I disagree. You should go before a judge, and the judge should make that call.

A lot of police officers appreciate that, because they might say that the law isn't necessarily on their side. The law on bail says a person must be released right away, but this law would give us a backdrop of safety through the bail provision that says you have to go before a judge. I think that's a very important provision in this bill that has not made the headlines, so to speak.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

As we've heard here, intimate partner violence has really grown. A woman is killed every 48 hours.

You mentioned that there are some things that keep you up at night. What does Bill C-225 mean to you, and what more would you like to add to the record about it?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Walking on the green carpet of the House of Commons has been one of the greatest honours of my life. It's right up there with getting married and having children. It's beneath those, but it's up there.

The ability to not only do that, but pass Bill C-291—which I authored last Parliament and was passed under the name of MP Arnold—to change the name of child pornography and sexual abuse material to child sexual abuse and exploitation material.... That's something I'll never forget. That is something I stood on doorsteps and said I would change.

The honour to sit here is one thing, but I can't put words on the ability to exercise that honour and pass meaningful changes. When I get stopped on the street by people I've never met, they say, “You look like Frank Caputo.” When I say, “Yes, I'm Frank”, they say, “I just want to thank you.” They're people I've passed before but never said hi to, and they say, “Do you know what? I was a victim of intimate partner violence, and I just want to say thanks. Have a good day.”

Giving voices to the voiceless, names to the nameless and faces to the faceless is something we should all do. The fact that I have the ability to put my name on a piece of legislation that does that will stay with me beyond my parliamentary career, and I am so proud of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Ms. Nguyen for five minutes.