Status of Women Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 26 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 resuming 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.

I have a couple of reminders for the benefit of the members and witnesses here today.

Please wait until I call you by name and recognize you before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic when speaking, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. You can choose the language of your choice on Zoom at the bottom of the screen.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

As you know, we're going through rounds of questions. When you have one minute left, you'll get the one-minute yellow card. When you have 30 seconds left, you'll get the 30-second red card. Then, ever so gently, I'll cut you off.

Before we begin, I would like 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 members of Parliament, it's important to recognize that these are very difficult conversations. Let's try to be compassionate.

Now I will welcome our witnesses for the first panel.

First we have Sabrina Nadeau, managing director of the association À coeur d’homme – Réseau d’aide aux hommes pour une société sans violence.

From the National Police Federation, we have Brian Sauvé, who is the president.

Welcome.

We will start with opening remarks.

Ms. Nadeau, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Sabrina Nadeau, Managing Director, À cœur d’homme – Réseau d’aide aux hommes pour une société sans violence]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I want to start by thanking you for inviting me to appear as part of your study on Bill C‑225. I sincerely applaud any private member's bill that seeks to make people, especially women, safer.

I started out as a lawyer more than 30 years ago, at the Attorney General of Quebec's office. For five years, I dealt with dozens of cases involving family and intimate partner violence. I saw scared women who wanted to withdraw their complaint or refused to testify for fear of retaliation. Even then, the burden of proof and the responsibility for their own protection was often on them.

At the same time, I joined the board of directors of an organization that helps abusive men. That was a revelation, because finally, the source of the problem was being addressed. I volunteered there for more than 20 years and was a group worker for six years.

Today, I have the honour of running the À cœur d'homme network, made up of 32 organizations across Quebec. The network works directly with men to prevent them from reoffending and end the violence.

I'm also involved in a committee that examines domestic violence deaths, overseen by the Quebec coroner's office.

Allow me to highlight a couple of compelling facts about spousal homicide. First, in nearly 30% of cases, the first—and only—manifestation of physical violence is the killing of the victim. Second, in nearly 90% of cases, the victim experiences coercive control before or after separating from the abusive spouse.

In light of those facts, I applaud the intent behind Bill C‑225. Automatically designating an intimate partner homicide as first-degree murder, regardless of premeditation, may seem logical. Indeed, the research shows that the majority of spousal homicides are not impulsive acts. They are thought out and planned—the ultimate act of control.

However, as drafted, the bill raises some legitimate concerns, which have already been brought to your attention. Accordingly, a victim defending themselves against their attacker could face a disproportionate burden of proof. For that reason, I respectfully submit that introducing a single specific offence criminalizing coercive control would be preferable.

While that may seem surprising, coming from an organization that works with perpetrators of violence, the proposal is very much in line with our values. To recognize coercive control is to place the responsibility for the violence on the perpetrator and hold them accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Similarly, I don't think it's necessary to create new offences. The existing provisions are sufficient, provided that when acts such as assault, harassment and intimidation occur within a dynamic of coercive control, they be considered aggravating factors. These situations must lead to harsher sentences, as well as psychosocial follow-up that is both rigorous and accessible. Services must be provided at every opportunity in order to break the cycle. There is no point in making a list of problematic behaviours, because perpetrators adapt and break the rules. That is why comprehensive, consistent and inclusive legislation is necessary.

Furthermore, I fully support the provisions requiring a judge to rule on the release of an accused repeat offender. The court's ability to order a risk assessment is also critical, but probation officers or criminologists should be the ones to conduct the assessment, rather than doctors. Probation officers and criminologists have the expertise to identify the dynamics of violence and to quickly refer perpetrators to the right resources.

In closing, I want to point out that the risk factors for spousal homicide have been long been identified in the scientific literature. Prevention depends on all stakeholders truly working together, across the justice, health, public safety and social service systems.

Quebec has made significant progress, but resources are waning, staff don't have enough time and budgets are shrinking, while the number of victims coming forward skyrockets. It is paramount that the Government of Canada continue to support the provinces and the organizations on the ground, those working every day to support victims, hold perpetrators accountable and make communities safer. We have a collective responsibility to take consistent and courageous measures, because another victim is one too many.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you, Ms. Nadeau.

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

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-225.

My name is Brian Sauvé. I'm a member of the RCMP and president of the National Police Federation, the union that represents about 20,000 members of the RCMP across Canada and internationally.

I'd like to begin by expressing my deepest sympathies to the McCourt family in whose honour Bailey's law is named.

The tragic circumstances of Bailey's death highlight the need for stronger tools to prevent similar tragedies in the future. Our members see, far too often, the devastating consequences of intimate partner violence. This bill represents an important opportunity to help prevent such harm and improve how police respond to intimate partner violence across the country.

From a policing perspective, several provisions in Bill C-225 would have operational impacts, starting with the extension of evidence retention under section 490. Currently, our members have a three-month window before seeking court approval to retain seized items. Extending that period to one year would bring administrative relief, allowing members to stay focused on investigations rather than filing repeated extension applications. For more complex investigations, particularly those involving digital evidence or forensic analysis, a one-year retention period is both reasonable and operationally realistic.

The creation of specific intimate partner violence offences, including assault and harassment against an intimate partner, would help members and courts identify patterns of abuse more realistically and in real time.

Enhanced information sharing among police services is vital when offences cross jurisdictions. Tagging individuals to intimate partner violence-related offences would allow officers arriving on scene to assess risk and context even when the suspect is unknown locally. That said, this change would require care and clarity in defining relationships and determining when an offence meets the threshold of an intimate partner context, as this could place additional scrutiny on officers' decisions in the moment.

The bill also introduces a seven-day judicial risk assessment provision for high-risk offenders, allowing courts to remand individuals for psychiatric evaluation when there is reasonable concern for an intimate partner's safety. This is a constructive and preventative measure that would ensure that risk management decisions are informed by expert input. However, its success would hinge on the availability of forensic and mental health resources, particularly in rural or remote locations. Without adequate federal, provincial and territorial support, these responsibilities could place further strain on both police and local community resources. It is essential that new duties introduced by this bill be accompanied by the necessary resourcing so that protective measures do not become downloaded obligations to the police alone.

Lastly, the bill proposes automatically designating intimate partner homicides as first-degree murder. The NPF supports the intent of this provision. However, it's also important that this measure not inadvertently capture or penalize victims who may act defensively or under coercion. Protecting victims must remain central to the bill's application and intent.

Thank you for the opportunity to present. I look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much.

Now we're going to move into our first round of questions.

Mrs. Vien, you may go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for giving us their time and joining us today. I think some of them have been here before or appeared previously before other parliamentary committees, so we very much appreciate it.

Our work on Bill C‑225 is nearing an end, and although it hasn't been passed, I'd be pretty surprised if the bill doesn't move forward.

Mr. Sauvé, clearly, you're in favour of the bill. I'm delighted that you're satisfied with a number of things it contains. However, you say that there aren't enough resources, that they have to be provided for. Otherwise, enforcing the bill could be a significant challenge.

Could you provide more clarity or be more specific about the needs that may not be addressed?

In fact, could you tell us what resources are needed to fill the gaps you've identified?

[Brian Sauvé]

Members of the RCMP work all over the country, not just in big cities. If we consider just Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary or Edmonton, for instance, communities there may have enough resources, including police or police liaison services, to achieve the goal. However, in places like Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories; Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador; or Grise Fiord, Nunavut, sometimes our members, accused and victims have to travel by plane to someplace central, such as Iqaluit or St. John's.

Police services in remote communities will need resources if the bill is to be successful. It's important to look beyond big cities, Laval or Montreal, for instance. Just because they may have the resources doesn't mean everything will be fine.

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

That will help with enforcing the law.

[Brian Sauvé]

Exactly. Putting all those resources in place requires federal-territorial-provincial partnership.

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

As parliamentarians, we've raised the possibility that this could inadvertently harm a victim acting defensively in a violent situation, meaning that they could be accused. You raised that too.

From all your experience, can you tell us roughly how many such problem cases might arise? I'm talking about cases where women—or men, because they too can be victims—are considered the accused, not the victim. Do you have a sense of what that figure might be?

[Brian Sauvé]

No, I don't have a figure. There are always “he said, she said” cases.

However, it's not really the job of police to make that initial determination. It's really the job of the courts.

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

Thank you.

Now I'm going to turn to Ms. Nadeau.

Good morning, Ms. Nadeau.

[Sabrina Nadeau]

Good morning.

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

Ms. Nadeau, you too talked about the fear that, in the commotion of a violent incident, the victim could find themselves wrongly accused. You said you wouldn't go that far. Did I understand you correctly? You said that we shouldn't go that far, but that we should focus instead on criminalizing and targeting coercive control. Is that what you said?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

Yes, exactly.

However, if it could be proved that a homicide or murder was committed in a context of coercive control, charges of first-degree murder could automatically be laid. I think that makes a lot of sense because, according to the science and the data on spousal homicides, they are really deliberate and planned acts. It is very rare for someone to wake up one morning and decide to kill their spouse by giving in to an impulse. We're not talking about this type of crime; we're really talking about crimes that are planned. It makes sense to me that it would be easier to lay a charge of first-degree murder and that it would be easier to show that there was intent and planning. So I think it could help the Crown, which has to prove these facts. That would lead to a better protection of victims.

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

You have worked for about 30 years with violent men. You said at the outset that this has been a revelation for you. What has that experience shown you?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

It has shown me that it was possible to change and that we had to seize every opportunity that arises in these people's service trajectory. I worked on the side of victims, as a Crown prosecutor. I saw the justice aspect of this issue. I wouldn't say that victims were mistreated, but it was often very difficult for them to navigate the legal system. The situation is improving, but it's still not perfect, far from it.

Personally, what I like about my work is that I work to protect victims by putting the hat on the right person—that is, by working to make men accountable. Some really profound changes and lifestyle changes can be made as a result of our interventions with these men. I have worked with board members who had received services and had adopted a completely non-violent lifestyle. So it is possible to change; we see that a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

I'm sorry; that's the end of our time.

Now we're going to Ms. Nathan for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To both of you, thank you for being here today to answer these questions to help us make more informed decisions.

My first question is directed to Mr. Sauvé. It's an operational clarity question.

If Bill C-225's IPV-specific offences and Bill C-16's coercive control offences were both enacted, how would this affect frontline charging decisions? Would police require additional guidance to determine whether to lay a coercive control charge versus a standard IPV offence?

[Brian Sauvé]

One of the concerns we're raising is to have clarity, whether it be within Bill C-16 or within Bill C-225. Our members are not experts in determining these things on the front line. They usually make operational decisions in the moment. To ensure that there's clarity within the charge approval process, the member who makes the arrest and processes that arrest does not face scrutiny about how they made that operational decision. You have to have the Crown and the court process to be able to review, modify, update, etc., should new information or evidence come to light.

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

Are you saying that you need more information and more procedural guidance on this?

[Brian Sauvé]

We need care and clarity, yes.

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

I have a question about the first-degree murder framework.

From an evidentiary standpoint, would Bill C-16's requirements to demonstrate coercive control before classifying murder as first degree create a clearer persecutional pathway than Bill C-225's automatic designation? Which mode is more workable operationally?

[Brian Sauvé]

I can't answer that one, honestly. I'll have to get back to you, because I haven't looked into Bill C-16 and that particular avenue of it. My apologies.

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

That's understood.

If we could get some clarity on that, that would be good.

In regard to system capacity, if Bill C-16 includes measures to reduce court delays while Bill introduces new offences and procedural requirements, from a policing perspective, would layering these regimes create added system strain, or do you see them as complementary?