Status of Women Committee on March 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 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.

I see that everyone is here in the room.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. If you wish to speak, raise your hand. Comments should be addressed through the chair, and the clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, the committee is commencing its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

We have officials from the Department of Justice here today to answer any questions you may have during the clause-by-clause consideration. I'd like to welcome, from the criminal law policy section, Nathalie Levman, senior counsel, and Alyssa McLeod, counsel. Welcome.

Now I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-225.

As the term indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it in less than three minutes, as we agreed. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member received from the clerk.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair might be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go beyond the principles or scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Only one subamendment will be considered at a time, and a subamendment cannot be amended. All amendments and subamendments must be submitted to the clerk in writing.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill will be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Thanks, everyone, for your attention. I will endeavour to go slowly so we can all follow along and everyone has a productive clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

(On clause 1)

Let's begin with clause 1.

In clause 1, there are two amendments that are proposed: NDP-1 and LIB-1. These two amendments can't both be accepted, because they're in conflict, so we'll have to pick one, the other or neither.

Mr. Caputo, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me.

Can I have the indulgence of the committee for a moment, as the bill's sponsor, to let people know how I envision things going today?

I will be asking the officials to comment on the difference between LIB-1 and NDP-1. “Incompatible” might not be the appropriate word, but they say essentially the same thing with slightly different wording. I believe one is possessive and one isn't.

Before we begin, thank you all for being here and for the support. I know that victims' families across the country are watching. It's great to have everybody at the table here.

How I hoped today would unfold is according to amendments that I have worked on with the government. Those amendments have been circulated. We have two amendments from the NDP. I have indicated to the government that we as Conservatives will be supporting their amendments. Obviously, we welcome the officials who are here and thank them for their work, and they will have something to say if we have questions.

Given the amendments that we have agreed to, certain clauses in the bill will no longer be necessary. In other words, they would conflict with the amendments that we have drafted. We will have to address that in clauses 3 to 6 and clauses 8 and 9. That's not to say that we are voting down a portion of the bill. It's just that, in agreeing to the amendments, we have essentially rendered those clauses obsolete. They're no longer necessary. I hope I've explained that clearly.

With that, I'll ask the analysts to weigh in on what I've just said. Could they please tell us about the differences between NDP-1 and LIB-1? I have told the government I would support it, but I think we should hear the differences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Before we go to the representatives from the justice department, I think it's only fair, since Ms. Gazan has moved NDP-1, that she could say a few words about it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much. I am excited to be here. I really do miss the committee. I loved this committee.

I will speak about the difference between the Liberal amendment and my amendment. They're very much the same. One is possessive; one is not. Instead of saying “partner and the death is caused”, I have “partner and their death is caused”. That is the change we've made in NDP-1.

Being here, I also want to emphasize and be very clear that I, along with the NDP, know that we do need legislation that protects women and gender-diverse people from violence, because we know that, on average, a woman or girl is killed every 48 hours.

We also know, since experts tell us, that it's not simply a law enforcement issue. We need to stop the violence before it happens. This means ensuring that indigenous women, all women, girls and gender-diverse people have the resources they need to protect themselves, including deeply affordable housing and basic income supports to ensure they can leave violent relationships. I say that because it seems that we are now taking more carceral approaches, which aren't necessarily supported by frontline advocates of this issue.

We also know, since experts shared this with the committee members during the study of this issue, that punitive and carceral approaches disproportionately impact indigenous people and could in fact endanger women and gender-diverse people experiencing intimate partner violence and have the opposite impact. That's why the NDP submitted amendments to this bill that specify that new penalties would not apply to those who are the ones experiencing violence and abuse as a consequence.

Again, I know that this is supported by the status of women committee, which has a history of doing wonderful work and working collaboratively.

I'll leave it at that, but that is, in essence, the difference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'll go to the justice department and then to Ms. Lattanzio.

[Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First I'll comment on the English version, and then on the French.

The committee members who have just spoken are absolutely right. The difference is between the possessive pronoun “their” and the definite article “the”. Just to take the committee through it, starting at line seven of Bill C-225, it has, in English:

murder is first degree murder when the victim is that person’s intimate partner.

The NDP motion would add “and their death is caused by that person”, whereas the Liberal motion would add “and the death is caused by that person”.

Grammatically speaking, the NDP's version requires the reader to do a little extra work to figure out whose death “their” is referring to, because it's preceded by both “victim” and “that person”. The phrase “the death” is a little more clear and succinct: It can only mean the death of the victim. I would say that is the grammatical difference between the two versions in English.

There are a few more differences in the French. They are substantively the same. I'm not going to go into a long description of the differences, since I am anglophone, but I can reassure the committee that we have spoken to francophone legislative drafters about the difference. Mostly, the difference is that the NDP version is a little wordier and therefore a little less precise. However, as both committee members have said, both amendments do achieve the same objective.

I hope that helps the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Ms. Lattanzio, go ahead.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank the NDP for putting forward this amendment. It is clear that we're all aligned in the shared objective of ensuring that women who kill their abusers are not treated as having committed first-degree murder. The amendment, as stated by a few of you, is very similar to the government's, but I do want to make the following remark.

In my view, the government's approach is better aligned with the provisions of Bill C-16 and with other coordinating amendments that will be proposed to ensure that we tackle the issue as soon as possible, whether Bill C-225 or Bill C-16 comes into force first. For that reason, I will be voting against the amendment, for technical reasons. However, I want to be crystal clear on this: I am in agreement with the intentions behind it, and I believe the government's amendment will achieve that objective.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there any further discussion on NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will go to LIB-1.

Is there any discussion on LIB-1?

Ms. Lattanzio, go ahead.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, I'm introducing an amendment in the provision of Bill C-225 that would automatically classify the killing of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. This amendment would require courts to look at whether there was a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour that made the victim fear for their safety.

Please excuse my voice this morning; this bill matters to me too much to not make it to the committee this morning.

This matters because intimate partner violence is too often a pattern of threats, intimidation and control over time; it's not just one incident. The amendment ensures that the law focuses on the person or persons who are trying to carry out that abuse. It also helps to protect victims. In some cases, women kill their abusive partners after years of violence and control. This amendment helps ensure that they are not automatically treated as having committed first-degree murder, by allowing courts to consider the full context of the abuse. That is the amendment being put forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Are there any further comments on LIB-1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to NDP-2.

Ms. Gazan had combined her statements when she spoke about the first one.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-2?

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand the intention behind the amendment. The goal is to make sure that victims who kill their abusive partners are not unfairly caught by the proposed first-degree murder provision yet again. This is the objective. I think everyone around this table knows this and shares this point of view.

However, I believe the concern has already been addressed by the amendment we just adopted, LIB-1. I am also concerned that this amendment would be broader than intended and could apply in situations the bill is meant to capture. For example, someone who has controlled and abused their partner and then murdered them might try to rely on the exception by arguing that they themselves experienced coercive control from a previous partner.

In other words, the coercive control aspect needs to be aimed at abusers and not at the victims of abuse. For those reasons, and because the concern was already expressed and addressed in a more targeted way by the amendment we just dealt with, LIB-1, we will not be supporting the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That was very well said.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-2?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Those are all the amendments to clause 1.

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

Now we go to amendment LIB-2, which contains a new clause, clause 1.1.

Does anybody want to speak to LIB-2?

Ms. Nathan, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm moving this amendment, which seeks to require a court to consider a life sentence for manslaughter when an intimate partner is killed in the context of ongoing coercive or controlling abuse. This amendment complements LIB-1 by ensuring that even when a case does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats killings linked to a pattern of abuse with the seriousness they deserve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Mr. Caputo, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate this. This wasn't in the original bill, but I think it really does fit with the intent. For those unaware, I was a parole officer before I went to law school, and I can tell you that the last time a life sentence was given for manslaughter was in 1972. It almost never happens, but if there is to be a life sentence for manslaughter in any context, it should be within the ambit of intimate partner violence, so I appreciate the government bringing it forward.

I don't have a vote, which I was just reminded about, even though I keep raising my hand, so I do encourage the committee to adopt this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there any further comment on LIB-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 2)

Clause 2 contains amendment LIB-3.

Would anybody like to speak to LIB-3?

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you once again, Madam Chair.

I move LIB-3, which would replace the bill's five proposed intimate partner offences with one broader offence covering violence against an intimate partner. It would treat existing offences such as assault, sexual assault, uttering threats and forcible confinement as intimate partner offences when committed against a partner, and it would increase the maximum penalties in those cases.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent.

Is there further discussion on LIB-3?

Go ahead, Mr. Caputo.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Just to be clear, this is essentially a change in form, not a change in substance. What we are doing is the exact same thing; it's just written differently. I am one person, but the Department of Justice has many lawyers, and they've said this is how we should do it.

I would encourage the committee to vote in favour, and then, as a result, clauses 3 through 6 would no longer need to carry, because it's encapsulated here. I hope that's clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there further discussion on LIB-3?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clauses 3 to 6)

There have been no amendments submitted for clauses 3 to 6. Can I have unanimous consent to group those together?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Okay, good.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I have a quick question. With respect to the amendments that have already been passed, do they have an impact on any of these clauses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I would ask the Department of Justice, because they're more qualified than I am to answer that.