Bill C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to:
(a) create a new specific offence of murder in the first degree if the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct;
(b) provide that, if an offender commits manslaughter against their intimate partner while engaging in, or after having engaged in, a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, the court must consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on the offender and, if that sentence is imposed, an adult offender is ineligible for parole for 10 to 25 years;
(c) create new offences in respect of included offences in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner; and
(d) increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to 180 days.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I must say, whenever we hear “when shall the bill be read the next time”, I think that this is the first time I have ever heard, in the House, that it be said, “Now.”

I hear the member from Winnipeg chuckling. I think that he is probably a bit disappointed that he did not get that extra word in Hansard. If it was recorded, perhaps it could be attributed to him by the verification desk. We all know that he likes to speak in the House, just as I do. In fact, we should all appreciate speaking in this place. I was reflecting not long ago about this, about how much of an honour it is to be here.

Let us face it. Whenever we have a job, we will have people who take different degrees of interest in their job. For me, I have the ability to stand here on the green carpet of the House of Commons, as somebody who grew up as the child of immigrants in a very middle-class home. My dad was a sawmill worker. My mom was a stay-at-home mom until I was about 10, the last child, when she went back to school to become a legal assistant. Ultimately, I became a lawyer. We see this going full circle.

The ability to stand here in the House of Commons is not something we should ever underestimate, regardless of which side of the aisle we are on. If I could amplify that point even more, it is an even greater honour when we have what we call private members' bills or Private Members' Business.

I experienced this first-hand last time, through Bill C-291, which was an amendment to the Criminal Code in the last Parliament, to change the name of child pornography to child sexual abuse exploitation material. I wrote that bill. It was then shepherded by the member for what is now Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

I have my Criminal Code here. I promise that I am not using it as a prop, but one of the things I can say about my 2026 Criminal Code is that this language has now been adopted to reflect the fact that we are no longer using that antiquated language. It is against that backdrop that I rise here today.

I thank everybody here for allowing this matter to proceed past the report stage without the necessity for a standing vote, so that we could get to third reading now. I am optimistic and hopeful that debate could perhaps collapse so that we could be voting on the bill as soon as Wednesday or even today. Hope springs eternal, they might say.

Colloquially, this is called “Bailey's Law”, Bill C-225. This is the first private member's bill that has been brought forward in the Parliament for debate. It is my honour to stand here before us.

Bailey McCourt was in her mid-30s. Her abuser was convicted of assaulting her, of choking her and, I believe, of threatening her. Three hours after he was convicted, free on bail, he killed her. That matter remains before the court, so he is obviously accused at this time. I do not believe that there is any dispute as to who the assailant was. The question of his guilt in a court of law will have to be for another day.

For context, I had actually written the bill about two or three years ago. As most people know, I was a lawyer before I came to this place. I guess I will be a lawyer after I leave this place. One of the things that really bothered me was that we treat assault the same way regardless of context, mostly. For instance, assault in the Criminal Code is under section 266. Whether one beats one's intimate partner or beats somebody up at the bar, it is the same charge. There is one exception that we used to look at a lot, which was assault of a peace officer. Assaulting a peace officer was different. The law certainly recognizes that, sometimes, things should be different.

I thought it should be different for assaulting an intimate partner. Intimate partners are within a relationship of trust and often of financial dependence. It is not uncommon for one intimate partner to make vastly more money. At times of separation or at times of potential separation, that can really be exploitative. There is spiritual dependence oftentimes, and just general codependence. That was something that really bothered me, and that was why I had written a version of the bill in 2023 or 2024.

The bill never got tabled. After Bailey was killed in early July 2025, the NDP Premier of British Columbia called for the killing of an intimate partner to be first-degree murder. I thought, as a Conservative, that if the NDP premier was asking for this, perhaps we could find a common ground. That is why I put the bill forward.

I want to recognize a number of people who have been impacted by Bailey's tragic killing. Let us not forget her children. Carrie Wiebe was present in the car when Bailey was killed. I sent her a message today giving her an update. We cannot forget Bailey's family, her mother Karen, her father Shane, her stepmom Trish, her sister Paige and her aunt Debbie.

Sometimes we see things in the news and become detached from them. One thing I enjoy about this job that is challenging, and I think every member here feels this way, is that when we deal with somebody, whether with respect to an immigration matter, a taxation matter or, in this case, a matter of crime, they are touched by it personally. I can say that when we look somebody in the eye, it touches us personally. If we look at people like Flo and Paul, who appeared at committee, and we hear them speak about their daughter and her tragic killing at the hands of an intimate partner, it really crystallizes within me the necessity for us to challenge the status quo sometimes.

The law evolves, it should evolve and sometimes it has to evolve more drastically. In fact, the last time I think the law evolved on the issue of intimate partner violence was likely in the early 1980s when an exception to the law of sexual assault with respect to one's spouse was taken out, and rightfully so. A person can sexually assault their spouse. It happens far too often. Therefore, I am very proud to be standing before Parliament today with I believe the support of all parties. We received all-party support at second reading. I hope we will have all-party support at third reading to make the most substantial change to the law of intimate partner violence thus far in Canadian history.

It is important that we work together. One of the things I often tell people who see us oftentimes as being pugilistic or combative is that there is a time and a place to be oppositional. I am a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, a role I take very seriously. Without a meaningful opposition, I believe that democracy is imperilled. There is a time to protest. There is a time to debate. There is a time to oppose. There is a time to question. Questioning is fine. In fact, questioning is vital to a robust democracy. I hope if I am ever on the government benches that we have a meaningful opposition. This is one reason why I often take such issue with time allocation, closure and things like that when we have barely discussed a bill. I am very proud to stand before Parliament on this issue.

I was talking about the opposition and why it is important. One thing people may or may not realize is this. If they were to look at the bill before it goes to committee, at second reading and after it has gone to committee, they would see a substantially different bill, and that is okay. In fact, when we work together and make bills better, it is a good thing. I can say, as the sponsor of this bill, that I believe we have made it better. I believe that, in working with the minister's office and my staff, we have made the bill better.

This may be the last time I get to speak on this bill, so I will thank my staff, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo and Rofiat Agboola, for helping out and working with the minister's staff. I would like to thank the minister's staff, who have been more than accommodating in meeting with us in order to address this bill.

What would the bill do? It would make major changes with respect to homicide of an intimate partner. If a homicide of an intimate partner occurs, that homicide would now be first-degree murder if there is a pattern of coercion or control, or if the homicide occurs during coercion or control. Manslaughter of an intimate partner would now have to be considered with respect to whether a life sentence should be imposed.

A life sentence in Canada is imposed mandatorily for murder generally, whether first-degree or second-degree murder The question then becomes one of parole ineligibility, and we call that a minimum sentence for life. There is actually a maximum sentence for life. A lot of people do not know this, but a person can go to jail for life for breaking into someone's home. That is the maximum sentence a court can impose. The court does not have to impose that, but it can. A court can also impose a maximum sentence of life for manslaughter.

I was a parole officer in my early twenties, and I worked in the justice system for a long time. The last time I saw a life sentence imposed for manslaughter was in 1972. That is a long time ago, yet intimate partner violence continues to be a scourge on our society. Maybe it is high time we address sentencing.

One of the things I have taken issue with is the government's sentencing of sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children. The way we as society and as Parliament reflect our difficulty or our issue with a crime should be based in part on sentencing: the more repugnant the crime, the stricter the sentence. In some cases we call that denunciation. That is what is talked about in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Sometimes we talk about deterrence, making a sentence so bad that people do not want to do the crime or will think twice before they do it.

However, in a lot of respects, we just have to say it like it is. It is happening far too often that intimate partners are dying. This is flying under the radar far too often, unreported or under-reported, so we need to make changes. Often in intimate partner violence what we call the cycle of violence continues on and on. In Bailey's case, there was a cycle of violence. As I recall, there were breaches involved. She had been previously victimized by the offender. It is time to stop the cycle of violence. We need a paradigm shift in this country on the issue, and I hope that Bill C-225 would do that.

My colleague will be speaking on behalf of the party seconder, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, whom I want to thank for giving up her spot in the order of precedence so we could speak to the bill sooner. Having a team effort like this and having members like the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot selflessly in order to have Bailey's law advance sooner on third reading, is how we get things done. I am incredibly indebted to the member. I am indebted to every member who has spoken to the bill from our benches, who has supported it and who has met with the family.

Let us get the bill passed right now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member has brought forward substantive legislation, and because of the processing of legislation for private members' hour, we are actually at a point where, whether it is after this hour or after one more hour of debate, we will actually have a vote on this substantial piece of legislation.

First, I would recognize the member bringing forward the legislation and bringing it to committee. It was really important that parties worked together so everyone could feel comfortable in ultimately getting the legislation to where it is today. I am wondering if the member could provide his feelings with respect to the committee process and the contributions that were made at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution. Obviously, sometimes we do have our disagreements in the House, and that is actually healthy.

Therefore, in direct response to the member's question, I will say that the committee process was actually very meaningful. For people who might not know, committee is where we study a bill. When we got to committee, we as Conservatives had agreed to a number of amendments. There were a number of stakeholders who had spoken loudly and clearly on the issue. I know that my Bloc colleagues had thoughts and that my Liberal colleagues and my NDP colleagues had thoughts.

However, the fact that we were able to synthesize all those thoughts so quickly into amendments was very meaningful. I believe it was two and a half or three meetings that the committee met for such a lengthy piece of legislation. Normally, private members' bills are a lot shorter. The committee process went as it should: smoothly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill. I work with him on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

We realized that amendments needed to be made when we examined this bill in committee after second reading.

I would like my colleague to talk more specifically about the importance of improving recognition of coercive control, which was a topic of discussion in our committee meetings. We have talked about this for far too long, but nothing seems to have come of it. What difference would that make for victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very important question.

The House voted, I believe unanimously, in the last Parliament on a bill from former NDP member Laurel Collins with respect to coercive control, but I believe it died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Coercive control is part of the cycle of violence that I just referred to. It is something that goes on and on. It is a part of that violence. Intimate partner violence generally does not just come out of nowhere. There are precursors. There are antecedents that happen, and coercive control is central to that. It is part of the dependence, often financial dependence, that we see, as well as psychological manipulation. Therefore, it is very important that the House recognize the role of coercive control in criminality.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker I spoke with Bailey's grandmother, who lives in my riding, who heartbrokenly told me that she was with Bailey the day she was born, for her first breath, and was with her when she took her last breath.

I just wonder if the member could tell us how we as legislators can justify not strengthening protections for victims through measures like Bailey's law to ensure that dangerous offenders are not given opportunities to reoffend and to murder an intimate partner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to Bailey's grandmother. I actually was not aware of her being present for Bailey's first and her final breaths. That is very difficult to hear.

In answer to the member's question, the first thing that we have to address is that there is a problem. If we are unprepared in the House to say that intimate partner violence is a problem, and if we are unprepared to say we have to deal with this, then we have an even bigger problem. This is the first step in addressing that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today and address a very important, substantive piece of legislation. I look at it with a holistic approach wherein we have witnessed over the last 10 months, since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we wanted to make the whole crime file a part of that first-year agenda going forward. That is one of the reasons we saw substantial pieces of legislation come before the House dealing with the issue of crime. Whether it is things that take place in homes and in our communities or things that garner a great deal of national attention, we want people to feel safe and secure in their communities, and we recognize that the federal government has a very important role to ensure that this is taking place.

That is why, when we take a look at the bill that we have before us today, Bill C-225, which the member appropriately named “Bailey's law”, Bailey McCourt hits the heartstrings of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How can one not formulate an opinion when they hear some of the details of that particular situation that occurred? It was very tragic and very horrific in its nature, in the consequences and impact on the family unit, the friends, the community and so many others. As such, maybe a good starting point would be to extend our prayers and best wishes to the family and those who are so familiar and have had to endure what has taken place since the murder of Bailey McCourt. I say that with all sincerity, believing that every member of the Liberal caucus, and every member of the House of Commons, recognizes the tragedy of an individual who had suffered and ultimately was assaulted. The perpetrator was arrested, but then released on bail, and ultimately the consequence was a death.

Fast-forward to the legislation that is before us today. This is why I indicated that I do believe it is appropriate to identify this piece of legislation with an individual whom people can easily relate to.

I posed a question in regard to the committee stage, to the introducer of the legislation, and I did that because I think it is important for us to recognize that private members' bills, and ours, can make a very positive difference in our communities. I use this legislation as an example, where something was brought to the floor of the House and ultimately went to a standing committee, and because we had a consensus that was building among different political entities, we were able to improve the legislation to the degree that it is getting support. Areas of concern were addressed, amendments were brought forward and, ultimately, we now have before us legislation that is not going to have an issue with being able to pass. The committee structure can work, and this is a good example of that.

Further to that, because we have a system that allows private members' business to ultimately be processed in a timely fashion, we know that legislation will pass and that time allocation, closure or unanimous consent, none of those things are necessary, because we have a process that enables bills to pass, and justifiably so.

We talked about coercive control and about how the Prime Minister and the government have talked about a new offence that would actually prohibit the pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, which is one of the reasons we brought forward Bill C-16. There is a lot of substance within Bill C-16 that would be good for our communities, just as there is in Bill C-225, which deals with the very important and sensitive issue of domestic violence.

If members were here for the second reading of the bill, as I was, we heard about domestic violence and coercive control, which is a dominant factor. We have heard this constantly over the years. The issue of stalking constantly comes up. We can think of the emotional and psychological abuse that is involved when domestic violence is taking place. However, often things like economic abuse are overlooked, which is a very real and tangible factor.

We often cite physical abuse, because we can see when a spouse has been physically abused, often to the degree that they have to seek medical attention, and things such as sexual abuse. However, more and more, one of the things that continues to grow, which we need to deal with as a legislature, is the issue of cyber-violence and the impact that cyber-violence has on our communities, especially with the issue of sexual intimidation and intimidation in many other forms, such as blackmail and extortion. The impact on the physical and mental well-being of victims is very severe.

The legislation before us today would elevate the consequence of domestic abuse, and I see that as a positive thing. During second reading of the bill, I talked more about the substance of the legislation, suggesting we would be open not only to what the member was trying to address but also to bringing other initiatives into the issue of domestic abuse and ensuring that there is an appropriate consequence to actions that are taken.

On the issue of femicide, I made reference to Bill C-16. “Femicide” is a term that is not well known, but I believe it will become better known in the years ahead, because we recognize it is something, through Bill C-16, that should be elevated to first-degree murder when put into the context of sexual violence and human trafficking. These are the types of initiatives that, if we take the same approach at committee or at debate on substantive legislation that goes beyond Bill C-225, would lead to women, in particular, as well as children and members of society, to being better protected.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should take a more holistic approach when looking at the legislation we have before us. Let us get the same sort of co-operation here that we witnessed in committee. Let us add strength to our legislation. The Prime Minister has provided us a substantial suite. Let us see if we can act together and make our communities a safer place to call home.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we are debating Bill C-225, which amends the Criminal Code. This bill is also known as “Bailey's Law”, sadly in memory of a young woman who was strangled to death. It was a horrific crime, and femicide still occurs far too often. Rising to speak to these femicides is always upsetting. I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill, which we had the opportunity to study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We were moved by the testimony we heard and want to express our sympathy to the family. This was a horrible murder. The committee meetings got very emotional. We must do something about this.

There is one thing, however, that I find somewhat regrettable. We discussed femicide and the problem of coercive control in the last Parliament. The member for Victoria, Ms. Collins, introduced a bill to criminalize coercive control. The bill passed in the House and even made it to the Senate. No bill on coercive control had ever made it that far before. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in 2025. That delayed the criminalization of coercive control, even though the National Assembly of Quebec has been calling for this for a long time, particularly since the publication of the “Rebuilding Trust” report. The National Assembly wanted to take action in Quebec to prevent any further femicides, but since the Criminal Code is federal legislation, the National Assembly said that it is the federal government that must act.

By talking about this issue again today, we can drive home a message that should have been sent a long time ago. In fact, it was not until I proposed a study on coercive control at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and parliamentarians from all political parties showed up outside the House for a press conference last fall to tell the government that it needed to take action on the issue of coercive control that things got moving. Meanwhile, at least the study of Bill C‑225 was coming along, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women got a chance to debate it.

There is a clear consensus on the seriousness of domestic violence, and all parties are willing to take action. As the work in committee showed, all parties were able to work together and propose amendments to move the bill forward and improve it. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill because it takes a rigorous and consistent approach, while respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Thanks to the amendments proposed in committee, we can say today that this bill must move forward.

However, the problem is not just that there is a shortage of laws, but that these laws are not being adequately enforced. The federal government keeps coming up with legislative changes without fixing the cracks in the system. At this point in my speech, I would like to share some statistics. Only 36% of family violence cases and only 5% of sexual assault cases get reported, which clearly points to a loss of trust in our institutions; 95% of domestic violence cases involve coercive control; and about 117,000 victims report domestic violence every year in Canada, 80% of them women. Furthermore, one in three women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

These figures are truly disturbing. In Canada, one woman is killed every six days. Not surprisingly, the most vulnerable groups are indigenous women, racialized women and women living in poverty. I could also include women in rural areas, where resources are more limited. The most vulnerable pay the highest price for the cracks in the system. We really have to act. It is also important to understand that coercive control is a form of violence that involves repeated acts of control and intimidation. Since it is a pattern of behaviour, gathering evidence is obviously not easy. The legal system is also ill equipped to deal with this problem. Current criminal law struggles to fully acknowledge the reality of coercive control, and that is what absolutely must change.

Our contribution to Bill C-225 includes tougher sentences, specific mention of intimate partners and the addition of the coercive conduct criterion. That was one of the proposed amendments. Then there is the increased focus on repeat offences, which is crucial. Those changes meant the bill was improved in committee. We worked very hard, and it was the result of cross-party collaboration. I want to highlight that out of respect for the victims, their families and their loved ones, while also keeping survivors in mind.

The Bloc Québécois brought forward what I would describe as constructive criticism. We wanted to ensure consistency with criminal law. For example, there was the issue of classifying the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. We also wanted to avoid legislative redundancy, because several offences already exist, such as harassment, threats and assault.

Adding sections to the Criminal Code does not always guarantee better justice. That is why we need to address something else at the same time: There is not enough enforcement. Not as many charges are being laid, with increased reliance on section 810, which was studied at committee. Does that really protect victims? This needs to be examined further in order to improve things. The problem is not so much the lack of tools as it is the way they are being used within the current justice system. Tools already exist in the Criminal Code.

Lastly, it is also important to consider the relationship between Quebec and the federal government. Quebec has a solid system of community-based networks. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all the groups and employees within these community networks who work every day to help women who are victims of domestic violence and coercive control. They perform small miracles. They have recognized expertise in addressing domestic violence, but the reality is that resources are insufficient and these organizations are under pressure. It is important that they receive increased resources. The federal government needs to provide financial support, not just pass legislation. However, this must be done while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions. These organizations know the reality on the ground in Quebec.

There are still too many obstacles for victims, who are afraid that they will not be believed. Financial dependence also keeps victims trapped in a cycle of violence because they are afraid that they will not be able to afford to escape and that they will lose custody of their children. We need to take action. The system is seen as ill equipped to deal with such situations and is even often exploited by abusers. The system must instead work to help victims break free of the cycle of domestic violence. It must not be yet another obstacle for them to deal with.

What is more, we are seeing that new technology is having an increased impact on violence. It provides new ways to control victims, including location tracking, digital surveillance and online harassment. The law really needs to evolve to keep pace with these new forms of violence. I would also point out that we need to address cyber-violence because that also disproportionately affects women.

In conclusion, we will really need to be very strategic. Of course, we support the bill because we recognize that improvements have been made. However, it is also important to continue ensuring that the law is consistent. Above all, we need to go further. Let me be clear: We must take effective, consistent and victim-centred action. There is only one way to do that. We must continue to listen to victims, survivors and their loved ones. As I said earlier, we must listen to the organizations that work with victims every day.

I, along with the members of the Bloc Québécois, pledge to keep listening to them. This bill is not an end in itself. It is an important step, but we must also ensure that a comprehensive system is put in place to support it. We will also need more resources and a truly systemic review of how we can address violence against women and femicide.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a strange and troubling thing in a country as prosperous and progressive as ours that a woman at risk can do everything she has been told to do, to seek help, speak truth and place her trust in the law, and still find herself dead at the hands of her own partner wielding a bloody weapon, in what can only be considered a completely avoidable murder.

Bailey McCourt is one such story. She was not a statistic. She was a young mother with two young children, right in my community of Cloverdale. To those who loved her, she was not a headline. She was the centre of a home, a woman trying to build a safe life for her family. Like so many others, she found herself in a relationship that became dangerous over time. There were threats. There was violence. At one point, there was strangulation, which is one of the clearest indicators that the risk had escalated to a level that should never be ignored.

On the morning of July 4, Bailey's former partner stood before a court and was convicted of assaulting her. The system had, in that moment, all the pieces in front of it. It had the history, it had the violence, and it had the pattern that had been building over time, yet despite all of that, he was released. There was no requirement to step back and ask whether this was something more than a single offence. There was no mechanism that treated violence against an intimate partner as fundamentally different from any other assault. There was no tool that required the court to fully assess whether Bailey was still in danger even after a conviction had just been entered. This is because under the law as it stands, we do not distinguish in any meaningful way between a violent act against a stranger and a violent act against someone in an intimate relationship, a relationship built on trust, proximity and, in many cases, vulnerability. When we fail to make that distinction, we fail to recognize the very real and documented risk that comes with intimate partner violence, particularly when it escalates.

Just hours later, Bailey was in a parking lot going about what should have been an ordinary part of her day. It was there, in that ordinary place, in broad daylight, that her attacker found her and murdered her. She knew this could happen. She had begged to be protected, but the law, as it is written, ensured that the warning signs were ignored, and the inevitable happened.

When we look back at that day, the question is not simply how this happened, but why there was no legal mechanism strong enough to interrupt it. Why, after a conviction, was there no ability for the court to say that it needed to take a closer look at this individual, needed a proper risk assessment and needed to determine whether releasing this person put a woman's life at risk?

Bailey's case is not just a tragedy. It is a clear example of a gap in our law, a gap between what we know about intimate partner violence and how our system is currently structured to respond to it.

When we step back from Bailey's story, difficult as it is, we are forced to ask ourselves a larger question. Was this truly an isolated failure, or is it part of something that we have been seeing for far too long and are just not willing to make the necessary changes to to protect women at risk?

Dr. Wendy Aujla, assistant professor of criminal justice at Athabasca University, has spent years listening to women, many of them particularly vulnerable as new immigrants, who have walked this very path, not in theory but in lived experiences, in stories that, when placed side by side, begin to look far less like exceptions and far more like a pattern we can no longer ignore. What she hears time and again are stories not of women who failed to act but of women who did exactly what Bailey did. They reported, they sought help, and they tried to leave, but just like with Bailey, risk was not considered in the context of what had already happened and what was increasingly likely to happen next.

For many women in the South Asian community, the path to even reaching that point is far more complex than the system is designed to recognize. Their particular cases are often complicated by family honour, language barriers and coercive control inside the home. A system like ours that is seemingly built to protect the perpetrator of intimate violence is very dangerous, especially for women of vulnerable minorities.

When we consider what happened to Bailey, we cannot look at it in isolation. It fits into a pattern that has already been identified and already been studied. The knowledge is there. Our laws are ignoring that knowledge. While research like Dr. Aujla's helps us understand the pattern, it is often outside the government and in community spaces where we see just how real and immediate this issue is for women living through it.

Last year, I attended a fundraiser on behalf of The Kaur Movement, founded by Gurpreet Kaur and supported by leaders like Manjot Kaur. The Kaur Movement is a survivor-led network that supports women facing abuse by connecting them to real-time help, such as shelters, legal aid and counselling, while also working to break the culture of silence around domestic violence, especially in the South Asian community.

I went to the fundraiser expecting to hear about advocacy, awareness and the kinds of work many organizations are doing in this space to support women. What I heard that evening has stayed with me because it was not abstract or theoretical. It was story after story of women who have lived through violence, who have tried to seek help and who, in many cases, have found themselves navigating systems that were slow or difficult to access at the very moment they needed them the most. What struck me was not just the severity of what women endure but the common thread running through their experiences, which was the sense that they were often left to carry the burden of their safety on their own shoulders while feeling helpless and afraid because their lives were not as valued as those of the men who perpetrated the violence.

The Kaur Movement has built something remarkable in response to this reality. It has created a network that responds in real time, connecting women to shelters, legal help and counselling, often at the very instant that they are reaching out. What The Kaur Movement is seeing day after day reinforces what we know: These are not isolated stories but part of a pattern that continues to unfold in communities across the country. Tragedies are playing out time and again due to a lack of laws that protect these vulnerable women in their moment of need.

We can place these stories side by side: Bailey's life and loss; the careful work of women like Dr. Aujla who study these patterns; and community voices like The Kaur Movement, rising from what they see in reality every day. When we do, it becomes impossible to pretend that we do not understand what is happening.

This bill asks us to finally align our legal response with what we already know to be true. It asks us to recognize in law that violence within an intimate relationship is not the same as violence between strangers, carrying with it a level of risk and proximity that makes it more dangerous, not less. This bill would begin to correct that by naming the reality for what it is. It would create a distinct offence that acknowledges the nature of intimate partner violence.

The bill would go further still. It would recognize that when the ultimate act of violence is committed within a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, when a life is taken by someone who has used that pattern of control and fear as a weapon, it must be treated with the full weight of the law. To name that act as first-degree murder would be not merely a question of punishment but a statement of clarity and a refusal to look away from what intimate partner homicide truly represents. The law has long recognized that killing in the context of other serious circumstances warrants elevation to first-degree murder. This bill would extend that same principle to the killing of an intimate partner where coercive or controlling conduct is present. That context is not incidental to the crime; it is the crime.

This bill would ensure that when a person has already been convicted of an intimate partner offence within the past five years, or is already at large on a release order related to a prior intimate partner offence, a peace officer could not simply release them at the scene. The decision would have to go before a judge. It would be a safeguard built for moments like Bailey's, where the history is already there, the pattern is already documented and the ordinary process of release is simply not enough to meet the gravity of what is in front of the court.

Bailey McCourt should still be here. That is the simplest, most honest thing that can be said. Her children should still have their mother. Her family should not be carrying this weight, nor should they be the ones who must now stand before us and ask that we do what should have been done already. We cannot give Bailey back to her children, but we can decide here and now that her story will not end in silence and that from it will come a measure of protection for those who are still, even today, waiting for the system to recognize the danger they are living with.

Let us pass this bill. Let us act with the seriousness this moment demands and ensure that when the warning signs are there, as they so often are, we do not look back once again and say that we knew and did not act.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at third reading to support Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First, I would like to congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their co-operation during the committee's consideration of the bill and for their efforts to significantly strengthen it through a series of amendments. We were able to work together in committee and achieve this. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for their valuable testimony and insights, which led to the discussion we are having today.

Before proceeding further, I would also like to note that this bill has been named “Bailey's Law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, British Columbia, who was tragically murdered by her former partner last July. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present during the committee hearings, and I had the opportunity to meet them right here in the House through our colleague, the bill's sponsor. I thank him for introducing them to us. We had a good discussion with them. I would like to point out that their work has not only inspired the House but also contributed to the amendments made to the bill in preparation for the next steps.

It is for these family members and countless other survivors and family members of those who have experienced intimate partner violence that we continue our efforts to advance this vital work.

I would like to focus on three points today, three key amendments made to the bill at committee that deal with first-degree murder, manslaughter and the proposed new offence of intimate partner violence.

First, Bill C-225 was amended to specify that the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as first-degree murder if the perpetrator commits the murder while engaging in, or after having engaged in, coercive and controlling behaviour. This means that, under these circumstances, the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as the most serious form of homicide, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. Whenever someone murders their intimate partner, it will be treated the same way whether it was premeditated or not.

This is a very important measure aimed at condemning intimate partner homicides, which disproportionately target women. First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years.

At first reading, Bill C‑225 proposed to automatically designate all intimate partner murders as first-degree murders. When the bill was being studied in committee, many witnesses indicated that, even though they supported the intent behind the proposal, they were concerned that it might inadvertently penalize victims of intimate partner violence who end up killing their intimate partner in response to that violence. They wanted to make sure that the bill would not apply to persons acting in self-defence.

In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to include a safeguard: Intimate partner murders would be treated as first-degree murders only if the evidence showed that the murder was committed “in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”.

A pattern of controlling or coercive conduct is defined in the coercion or control offence proposed in Bill C‑16. This offence was carefully designed so that it would protect victims and not be used to their detriment. It includes indicators of persistent violence that help determine who the true aggressor is in any given situation, including fatal cases of intimate partner violence, since we must consider the alleged offence in its broader context, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents of violence.

This will make it possible to distinguish between acts of abusive violence and those committed in self-defence. In short, evidence will be required to prove that the person who killed their intimate partner was also experiencing a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. This could help to ensure that victims who kill their violent partner would not be considered to have committed first-degree murder because these victims did not necessarily have control over their partners. The goal is to protect the victims in such situations.

This amendment is therefore very important. It also seeks to protect women and is a direct response to the concerns raised by several witnesses in committee. It also complements the provisions of Bill C-16 related to femicide.

Second, Bill C-225 was amended to require the sentencing court to consider imposing a life sentence in cases involving the manslaughter of an intimate partner where the offender committed the offence in a context of coercive control. This amendment complements the one relating to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, which I just talked about, by ensuring that, even when the homicide of an intimate partner does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats it with the utmost seriousness.

Like the amendment related to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, this amendments seeks to protect victims who kill their violent partner in response to the violence they are experiencing. This provision also complements one of the aggravating factors related to manslaughter in cases of femicide already set out in Bill C-16.

The amended bill also includes a number of consequential amendments related to this amendment regarding the offence of manslaughter in the context of intimate partner violence. For example, if a court were to impose a life sentence in such a case, it would also be required to impose a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 25 years.

This amendment ensures that manslaughter committed by an intimate partner is treated in a manner that is comparable to second-degree murder for the purpose of the parole ineligibility provisions when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment. In doing so, it recognizes that those who take the life of an intimate partner in a context of coercive control bear greater responsibility.

Lastly, Bill C‑225 was also amended to create a new offence specific to intimate partner violence that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. deputy government House leader.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Danielle Martin, member for the electoral district of University—Rosedale, introduced by the Right Hon. Mark Carney and Leslie Church.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑225 for the second time in this Parliament.

However, this topic is nothing new. I had already spoken to this bill a few times. In 2020 and 2021, our colleague from Victoria and members for several other ridings had already introduced similar bills, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently completing its study of the government's Bill C‑16, which deals in part with the same issue.

Bill C‑225 is, I believe, the fifth bill dealing with the same issue. The reason for that is not that we are doing a bad job and need start over all the time, but that bills die on the Order Paper when Parliaments end. When we start over, we often like to wear both a belt and suspenders, as we say back home. We want so badly for something to work out that we often give it two or three tries.

As I was saying, what we are studying right now is Bill C‑225. As for Bill C‑16, we will very likely complete the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, at which point we will finally be able to begin third reading of the bill, which also addresses the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. It is a major problem.

I am obviously not the only one who thinks that this is a major problem. Our society is continuously undergoing major changes. That has always been the case and likely always will be. Certain behaviours that may have been acceptable 50 or 75 years ago, or even in the last century, are no longer acceptable, and I am sure some behaviours that we think are acceptable today no longer will be in 50 or 100 years. That is why we need to be continually reviewing the legislation that applies to certain situations, even though we may have done so a while back.

All types of violence are on the rise in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. We now have to deal with extremist groups that have resources that they never used to have and that are spreading around the world and throughout our society. There is also domestic violence, another form of violence that may seem insignificant because each case involves fewer people.

Domestic violence usually involves two individuals, the violent individual and the victim of their violence. However, it also affects the couple's children, their whole families and society as a whole, which must find a way to address this issue. Education is needed to bring about change. We can pass as many laws as we want in the House, but we can never prevent somebody somewhere from becoming violent and committing regrettable acts of violence without even thinking about it, without even making a conscious decision.

In my riding, last fall, Gabie Renaud was murdered. Her murder caused a lot of outrage, not only in my riding but across Quebec, Canada and the U.S. as well. The accused was an individual who had previously been convicted several times for domestic violence. I believe he had been convicted over a dozen times. I do not have the exact numbers but it was multiple convictions. He served his time in jail and was released. He paid his debt to society, as they say. He got out of jail, found a new spouse, abused her and then murdered her.

It is appalling. Although it may only affect a few close individuals, I believe it is an issue for society as a whole. As parliamentarians, this is primarily our responsibility, since it is up to us to establish a legal framework, or a body of laws, that will ensure these kinds of harmful situations are prevented.

Would locking someone up for the rest of their life when they are violent with their partner solve the problem? It probably would, but that is not what we want. We believe in lofty principles such as the presumption of innocence and people's rights and freedoms. They are enshrined in our charters, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, and we must maintain them.

However, we must also work to ensure that this does not happen again. Bill C-225 proposes criminal measures. It proposes harsher sentences and consequences for such crimes in the hope that society as a whole will become more aware of how serious the situation is. There is also the hope that this may prevent more cases of domestic violence like this one. Does it work? I do not know. So far, the results have not been very encouraging. As I said earlier, cases of domestic violence are on the rise in Quebec, across Canada and just about everywhere.

I think we need to pass Bill C-225 and Bill C-16 and support the fight against these crimes through tougher penalties. However, I also think we need to invest more in rehabilitating inmates and educating young people to prevent this from continuing to happen. Education programs are already being provided to young people in schools. The goal is to try to prevent violence. Given that my wife was a teacher for her entire career, I can say that the situation is definitely not getting any better, despite everyone's efforts. Violence in schools is on the rise. I am not a sociologist, and for reasons I do not understand, unfortunately, people are obeying the established rules less and less, and they are disrespecting one another more and more. We cannot ignore the problem and we should all be extremely concerned about this. We may not be the ones teaching in our schools, but we create the legislative framework in which society as a whole operates.

These punitive measures, which involve imprisoning people and refusing to release them until a certain period has elapsed, probably have some deterrent effect on people who have not yet been charged but who are watching to see what kind of laws we pass. However, that is not enough. We need to invest. Quebec has no money left, the roads are in bad shape, and people wait 24 to 48 hours in emergency rooms. There are little to no specialized services left in schools. This is not working anymore. People are overtaxed. In many cases, more than half of a person's salary goes to the government. Where does that money go?

I think the federal government should transfer funds to the provinces to help them address these issues. There needs to be more rehabilitation programs in prisons. There needs to be more educational initiatives for youth in schools. We need to find a way to rebuild a society that respects every individual and establish a legal framework that enables and promotes this respect and mutual awareness among all members of society.

I could go on at length about this, but I would not be adding anything substantial. We will agree on Bill C-225, but that does not preclude us from doing more to prevent crime through education and better rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, so that when people are released from prison after one year, five years, or twenty years, they come out different from who they were when they went in.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, usually when members rise in the House to speak to legislation, they do so with energy and exuberance. Today is very different. As a mother of two young women finding their way in the world, I really appreciate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this legislation; however, it is troubling that such legislation is even necessary, though it undeniably is.

Far too often, intimate partner violence has persisted as a hidden crisis in our country. It is often left unspoken, pushed to the margins of public discourse and too easily overlooked. In many communities, particularly those already facing systemic barriers, it remains especially difficult to name, confront or escape. Too many Canadians endure this violence in silence. Whether it is due to stigma, manipulation and coercion, or a lack of confidence in the system meant to protect them, victims are too often left feeling unseen and unsupported, regardless of whether they come forward.

This is happening to our friends and our families in communities across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga and our entire nation. It is this reality that brings us to this debate today.

Legislation like Bill C-225 represents a strong step toward acknowledging the distinct and serious nature of intimate partner violence. It signals to the tens of thousands of Canadians that the government recognizes these harms and is prepared to equip law enforcement and the justice system with the tools needed to respond effectively and hold perpetrators accountable.

Intimate partner violence and related issues, such as coercive control, have occupied a significant part of my time here in Ottawa, especially during the last Parliament, as I had the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we studied these issues extremely closely and thoroughly. We completed studies on gender-based violence and femicides against women, girls and gender-diverse people, as well as coercive behaviour. The committee prided itself, and I hope it still does, on its ability to put partisan differences aside and focus on the matter at hand: Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians, suffering in silence.

I know that this spirit of co-operation, championed by my predecessor, Karen Vecchio, will continue with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who I want to congratulate on her recent election to that position. I would also like to thank my successor, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, for her work in the chair over the past year.

Despite being one of the lesser-known committees, FEWO is by far the committee with the most to teach members in this place about working co-operatively and collaboratively, a lesson I hope is heeded and remembered as the government moves to amend committee composition. I think it is particularly fitting that the sponsor chose the Standing Committee on the Status of Women as the committee to review this legislation. That is what we need, a non-partisan approach to protect not just women suffering in abusive relationships but men and non-binary Canadians as well.

As I was preparing this speech, I went back and took a look at the witness testimony at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to see what was said and what arguments were put forward both by members and by witnesses. I was particularly struck by the panel that appeared on the very first day, along with the sponsoring member.

I am going to first acknowledge the conversation shared by Debbie Henderson. She spoke about the murder of her niece Bailey. She made the argument better than I ever could, so I would like to repeat a portion of her harrowing testimony:

The system currently continues to extend the trauma and torment by forcing families to wait and see whether charges will be upgraded to first-degree murder. Our family had four and a half months of stress and anxiety waiting for Bailey's murderer to have his charges upgraded to first degree. No family should have to live with the fear of wondering whether after a conviction they'll be forced, at a parole hearing in 10 years, to face the person who cruelly stole their loved one.

Given the severity and predictability of this type of violence, these murders should be treated as what they truly are—intentional, targeted and devastating acts. Killings in the context of intimate partner violence should be classified as automatic first-degree murders with the opportunity to apply for parole only after 25 years.

We must also begin labelling violence as what it is. Assault against an intimate partner is not the same as a bar fight or an altercation with a stranger; it's part of a pattern that is rooted in control, fear and escalating harm. Assaults should be clearly identified as intimate partner assaults so that the justice system can properly recognize the heightened risk they carry. Language matters because recognition drives prevention.

There must also be stronger safeguards at the point of release. Repeat offenders, especially those convicted of violence or threats against a partner, should not simply be released back into the community following police involvement. They should be required to appear before a judge and be properly assessed for risk, because when the system underestimates danger, families pay the price. There needs to be real accountability within the system that is meant to protect the vulnerable and prevent foreseeable tragedies.

Bill C-225 represents an opportunity to close the gaps, to recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence and to prevent other families from experiencing this unimaginable loss. Bailey should still be here. Her children should still have their mother. Our family should not be learning how to live with her permanent absence.

Her words are crystal clear, and they make perfect sense. The murder of a partner is one of the most visceral, raw, intimate things one can do. It is not done in the heat of the moment. It is often the culmination of months, if not years, of verbal, emotional and mental abuse. It is the final act in a series of escalating manipulation and exploitation, a literal living hell where, for far too many, the only escape seems to be cold-blooded murder.

Bill C-225 does not seek to, nor should it, address every single element of intimate partner violence. It needs to be considered as part of the wider tool box of public society in fighting this, a tool box that needs to include education, prevention and support for survivors and their families.

The bill is an important piece of the puzzle. It would send the message that, God forbid, if someone does this, if someone violates the sanctity of trust, love and commitment of their partner, justice will be delivered, not just to the perpetrator but, more importantly, to the family and memory of the person who was taken out of their lives. This is not vengeance. This is closure.