Bill C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to:
(a) create specific offences in respect of intimate partner violence and to prohibit a peace officer from releasing a person arrested for an intimate partner offence if the person has committed an intimate partner offence in the preceding five years or is at large on a release order in respect of an intimate partner offence;
(b) allow a court to order that an accused charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence be taken into custody for a risk-of-reoffending assessment at any stage of proceedings; and
(c) increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to one year and to provide for circumstances in which notices to the person from whom the thing was seized may be dispensed with.

Criminal Code

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is more a point of debate.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to clarify the record, why does she not tell us what she said, right here, right now?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Anything that was said without a mic open is not open for debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order, both members.

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to Bill C-225, a private member's bill introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, to speak about intimate partner violence.

I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill for bringing it forward and to note that addressing intimate partner violence is a priority for this government and a key commitment in our platform.

Bill C-225 proposes three sets of reforms to address intimate partner violence. First, it will create new offences and sanctions specific to domestic violence. Second, it will amend the Criminal Code with regard to the detention of seized property. Third, it will make changes to the bail process for cases involving intimate partner violence.

Although these proposals may seem well intentioned, they require thoughtful, evidence-based measures to truly protect victims, rather than ill-conceived changes that could negatively affect them.

Over the past several years, this government has taken bold and decisive action to protect victims of IPV and hold offenders accountable. In 2019, through Bill C-75, we strengthened the Criminal Code by defining “intimate partner” for all purposes, including ex-spouses; creating a reverse onus at bail for accused with prior IPV convictions; requiring courts to consider those prior convictions; and clarifying that strangulation is an elevated form of assault.

Bill C-75 also imposed higher maximum penalties for repeat offenders, emphasized denunciation and deterrence, and ensured consistent sentencing for abuse against spouses, former spouses, dating partners and family members.

It is therefore very concerning that the Conservatives have said in this House, time and time again, that they want to repeal this critical piece of legislation.

A former bill, Bill C-233, was introduced in 2023 by my friend and colleague, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle. It brought in critical tools, such as the electronic monitoring of IPV offenders, ensuring that courts could impose conditions to actively prevent repeat IPV.

Bill C-233 also provided an opportunity for judges to further their education on coercive control and IPV, thus ensuring that the judiciary understands the complexities that so many survivors experience.

Similarly, the government's Bill C-48 broadened the reverse onus for bail to target repeat IPV offenders, in direct response to victims' concerns that they were at ongoing risk when repeat offenders were released on bail.

Our government takes this issue seriously. The safety of women and girls is a top priority. Studies and inquiries, from those of Statistics Canada to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, show that IPV and gender-based violence remain pervasive. Coroner's inquest commissions, including the Renfrew county inquest and the Mass Casualty Commission, have recommended having new offences on coercive control, modernizing criminal harassment and addressing femicide. These recommendations are all being carefully considered for comprehensive reforms.

As a woman and a mother of two daughters, I am proud to say that I understand the personal responsibility that we have to protect women and girls in this country.

I would remind the House that our women's caucus is the largest in Canada's history. Each of the women in this caucus works tirelessly, every day, to advance laws that protect women and girls.

In stark contrast, the Conservatives have consistently voted against measures that protect women. They gutted essential women's and gender-equality programs, leaving vulnerable women at risk. They opposed the national action plan to end gender-based violence, a plan that is now delivering $539.3 million in crucial funding to women's organizations across the country, including $1.2 million in the riding of the sponsor of the bill, the riding of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I know that the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola cares deeply about his community, and I respect him for that. However, when it comes to voting for the safety of women in his riding, he has consistently voted against these measures, following the instructions of his leader.

I also want to highlight the voices of survivors and of frontline organizations. Last month I met with women's shelters across Quebec. I was deeply moved. These organizations told me that the rhetoric around IPV must be less toxic, and they have asked us to work together in the House, as Parliament, to get it right.

As a woman, I am particularly concerned about Bill C-225's proposal to automatically classify all IPV-related killings as first-degree murder. Let me explain. The proposal means that a charge of first-degree murder, under Bill C-225, would also apply to women who, as victims, have endured IPV abuse, including possible coercive control, and who in turn have killed their abuser.

While Conservatives may argue that self-defence would still be available for these victims, they know full well that in IPV cases where women have not reported prior abuse to police, self-defence becomes complex. Bill C-225 would penalize abused women who kill their aggressors, with 25 years of jail. This approach risks penalizing victims instead of focusing on the culpability of abusers, overriding decades of jurisprudence that recognizes the cumulative effects of abuse. That is why we need laws that make practical sense, not measures that merely sound tough in name. This is serious. Our laws must protect victims, not punish them.

The government's approach is deliberate and evidence-driven. We recognize that IPV is complex and cannot be solved with isolated legal tweaks. Our criminal law must reflect the full spectrum of IPV, including coercive control, assault and strangulation. That is why our upcoming reforms, developed in collaboration with provinces, territories, survivors, families of victims, legal experts and frontline organizations, are carefully targeted to protect survivors and to hold offenders accountable.

I offer my hand to my colleagues across the aisle and hope they will support our upcoming legislation that would, in the House, address these issues.

To all women, I say that the government has their back. We prioritize their safety. We listen to survivors. We work hand in hand with law enforcement. We invest in programs and legislation that prevent and respond to intimate partner violence, and the Minister of Justice is actively working with survivors, families and law enforcement to crack down on IPV offenders.

The government will continue to strengthen protection. We will enforce accountability, and we will modernize our criminal laws, because every woman and girl in Canada deserves to live free from fear. We will get this right.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by reiterating my solidarity and compassion for all victims of violence, particularly victims of intimate partner violence. This morning, I am especially thinking of the family and loved ones of Gabie Renaud, whose partner is accused of murdering her. There was a demonstration in her honour yesterday, and hundreds of people came out to express their support for Gabie Renaud's family and loved ones.

This is the kind of tragedy that should never happen. It is the kind of tragedy that we, as legislators, must prevent if we can. I am very pleased that my colleague is bringing this issue to the House and that we can discuss it in committee.

I hope for calm discussions. Obviously, it is very difficult to stay calm when faced with situations like this one. People tend to get carried away and to want revenge. There is no other word for this crime: It is revolting. However, I think we need to take a step back. We need to look at the situation with wisdom and perspective in order to make decisions that will be applicable, first of all, and, second, that will promote societal harmony now, in 2025.

As I was saying, yesterday, I was in the mood to revolt, not only against these situations, but also against myself and this entire legislative body, because so far, it has not demonstrated that enough resources are being put in place to prevent such tragedies from happening. However, I think that we need to proceed in a balanced way. Unlike some people, I continue to believe that the presumption of innocence is essential in our society. I continue to believe that offender rehabilitation is a valuable goal that we must strive for.

However, I also continue to believe that we owe it to each and every person in this country to keep our streets and our communities safe. I also continue to believe that we can and must stand in solidarity with individuals who may be victims of controlling and coercive behaviour, violence or any other similar behaviour. We must stand in solidarity with them and help them every day. Every one of us must look at our families, our friends and the people around us, identify potentially problematic situations and intervene as best we can.

This brings me back to our work as legislators. Striking this balance between the presumption of innocence, rehabilitation and keeping our streets safe will not be easy. However, that is the challenge before us. It is a challenge that I accept, and I look forward to hearing from people and experts in committee. They will come and help us identify the major principles that need to be addressed and how to implement them.

We have been through this process before. The Assistant Deputy Speaker was there. No doubt she remembers that we addressed this subject several times in previous Parliaments. In the last Parliament, a bill was introduced by our colleague, whose riding I forget, but it is on Vancouver Island. He introduced a bill that touched on this aspect of coercive control, which we all agreed on. All of us welcomed it with open arms. It went to the Senate, but one thing led to another, and Parliament was prorogued. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper.

Now we need to take a look at this problem again. What our Conservative colleague is proposing today is not exactly the same as what was proposed back then, but it is still worthwhile for us to come together to reflect on this problem and find solutions.

A typical knee-jerk reaction is to present simple solutions. If everyone is put in prison, there will be no more crime. Obviously, I know that no one is suggesting that. However, there is this mentality that individuals should be put in prison as soon as there is a risk. The opposite mentality is that everyone is presumed innocent, regardless of the danger to public safety. I think we need to find a middle ground, a balance between those extremes.

I also think that when someone is charged with a violent crime for the third, fifth or 10th time, it should force the realization that rehabilitation programs have not worked for that individual. Different measures need to be taken than those that would be used for their first offence or first charge. Of course, we always need to be careful not to go overboard. I do not want innocent people to be detained. That should happen as little as possible. There are some such cases, there always have been, and there probably always will be, because to err is human. Judicial error is also human. However, we still need to be cautious in our approach.

We should take a prudent approach and find a middle ground between throwing everyone in jail and letting everyone out of jail. There are options available in 2025 that did not exist 20 or 40 years ago, like electronic bracelets. This creates some issues because it infringes on individual freedoms, yet imprisonment also infringes on individual freedoms. Should we use electronic bracelets more often? Maybe the answer is yes, or maybe it is no. Maybe we should do that in some circumstances but not others. That is the kind of question I would like to ask experts when this matter comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I think a little more imagination is needed in order to come up with solutions and to eliminate the problem. I would very much like to hear some actual statistics. We hear all sorts of things. As parliamentarians, we hear from our constituents. That is fine, and actually it is quite a good thing. We are accountable to them.

For example, some people are saying that spousal homicides have skyrocketed over the past five years. That may be the case. However, other people are saying that the number has actually gone down. Some folks are saying that we need to put more people in prison, while others say that prisons are already too full of people awaiting trial. According to some, there are more people in our prisons who have not yet been tried than there are convicted criminals. That makes no sense. How do we find the right balance? I do not know where the right balance is. What I do know is that I have to try to find it. That is my job and the job of everyone here. To do that, as I said, we will need to hear from experts who will help us understand these issues.

The case of Gabie Renaud strikes a particular chord with me. I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure that nothing like this happens again. I am extending an invitation to my government colleagues. Yes, we have a job as legislators, but the government also has a job. It needs to free up the funding required to fight crime. It is all well and good to talk about rehabilitation. When I say that I believe in rehabilitation, I mean that it is part of my values. I believe that this is what we should be striving for. Are we able to rehabilitate people today, though? Perhaps not as much as we would like. It takes money and organizations. Programs need to be set up.

Are we able to do that? If so, let us go ahead and do it. If not, let us acknowledge that and ensure that we do whatever it takes to find a way to do it. Rehabilitation falls mainly to Quebec and the provinces. Let us free up the funding necessary so that the people and governments that need to work on this are able to do so.

With regard to the presumption of innocence, there is a balance between the rights and freedoms provided for in all of our charters and laws. This is important, but we also need to work on it. The Supreme Court has set maximum time limits for holding trials. However, the provinces and Quebec do not have enough money to build courthouses, appoint judges, and hire court clerks and bailiffs.

Grand principles are all well and good, but they must be reflected in concrete measures. I therefore call on our government to free up the necessary funds and to work with Quebec and the provinces so that we can uphold the presumption of innocence and keep our streets safe.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me first just say that it is an honour and a privilege to formally second this bill, which has been presented by my friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

We all come to this place to leave our mark and make a difference. I think this piece of legislation is one of the ways there could be a measurable outcome. This bill would certainly do all of that. I strongly support it, as all members in the House should, because it would take meaningful and concrete action to protect people from the growing scourge of intimate partner violence, which has even been called an epidemic in Canada.

It seems like everybody has stories of their own experiences with intimate partner violence. We hear about it from a close friend or family member. We read about it online or on social media. In some cases, we have heard in the House that members have experienced it themselves.

I will never forget something that happened in my first month of being a member of Parliament, when I was so ill-equipped for this job, not knowing what was ahead. A woman sat across from me, veiled behind a brave smile. Her long sleeves were covering bruising, and her face was masked with heavy makeup in some places. She claimed, with a quiet confidence, that when she told me she had tripped, she knew I would understand what she was saying without my ever asking for any more details.

The story she eventually told made me realize that, in that moment, behind closed doors, every single word in her old life had been a weapon, and every single apology had been a trap. It all started with control, not fists. Then came the fear. Then came the silence, and for her, then came the isolation. The story she told me ended long after it first began. She ended up packing a small bag. It took all the courage she had. Her first step out of her door was her first step to freedom.

These are the stories of survivors, the ones we have to believe, the ones who have to be protected. We blur out the details of these stories not for effect, but to protect those who are still silently struggling, long after they have walked out the door. I just want to say to those who may be watching today, that if this is them, they should please talk to a police office, please talk to somebody they trust.

This does not always look like that textbook experience that happened to me in my first month on the job. Keira Kagan’s story was different. It was a story from right within my own community, a story that happened among my own peer group. Keira was a bright, beautiful four-year-old girl. She had a smile that would light up a room and a sense of curiosity that made everyone around her know that someday she would go places, but tragically, she never got there. She will never graduate from school, start a career, start a family or have kids of her own.

Keira was killed five years ago by her father in a horrific act of domestic violence. Her life was stolen from her before it had hardly begun. The warning signs were all there. At least 22 different risk factors were identified in a report released after Keira’s death. Her father was in a custody battle with her mother, Jen. He had a history of mental illness and domestic violence against Keira’s mother and against other partners. He displayed misogynistic attitudes, threatened others and even committed acts of violence against pets. However, despite all of that, despite all the red flags, the warning signs and the cries for help, Keira was still released into her father’s custody in what can only be described as a colossal failure of the system. She was killed just a few days later.

In the last Parliament, the House unanimously passed a bill called Keira’s law, which expanded training for judges to include domestic violence and coercive control. The bill introduced by my hon. friend picks up where that bill left off by modernizing the detention of seized evidence, forcing those convicted of domestic violence to be released only by a judge and treating the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder.

Creating specific offences matters, such as the specific offences of the assault of an intimate partner and criminal harassment of an intimate partner, and these could have helped in the tragic story of Keira. The legislation would allow the courts to detain the accused of intimate partner violence at any time for a risk assessment, the kind of assessment that would be done before, not after, things go wrong. That kind of assessment could have saved Keira's life. We cannot and should not be complacent in fighting this scourge in the House.

In just 10 years, intimate partner physical assault has increased by 14%, harassment is up 38% and intimate partner sexual assault is up a whopping 163%. We could talk all day about the reasons this is happening, but nobody can deny that the lack of accountability in our justice system is a major reason intimate partner violence and crimes of all types are running rampant and are out of control in this country.

Let us take another case of somebody we have talked about in the House. Her name was Bailey McCourt. Bailey's partner, James Plover, was convicted of three counts of uttering threats and one count of assault by strangling in the case of intimate partner violence. He was released on bail, and he killed Bailey that very same day. She died in a parking lot, after being beaten with a hammer. If our bail laws had been fixed, James Plover would not have been allowed out on bail and Bailey would be alive today, to be the mother to her children.

Her family is watching right now. I spoke to her aunt in the lobby just a few minutes ago, and she is absolutely disgusted that this bill will not be supported by the other side. She is disgusted at the comments coming from the other side. The same could be said for the over 120,000 victims of intimate partner violence in 2023 alone.

Every case of this is not just a statistic that we talk about in Parliament as a number. It is not an excuse for the government to tell Canadians, when they ask serious questions about the government doing something on bail, that it is coming tomorrow, next week, next month or someday. Even one case of intimate partner violence should be enough to make this place act.

Every preventable act should be a wake-up call to get people in the chairs in this place to do something about it. Instead, the changes Conservatives propose in this place on the bail system or on sentencing requirements to the Criminal Code are voted down time and time again, only to again be told that it is coming tomorrow. However, for Bailey, Keira and countless others, tomorrow never comes. Every day that we delay is another day for serial abusers to harass their victims without consequences, for more men and women to suffer physical and emotional trauma and for innocent lives to be put in danger.

Taking action someday, frankly, just is not enough. Someday will not put the bad guys in jail. The message now to anyone watching and everyone on the other side is this: They should act now before more preventable tragedies happen, because the only thing worse than a case of intimate partner violence is a case that we had the ability to stop.

This piece of legislation would save lives. It would prevent escalation of intimate partner violence. It would stop the warning signs when they first occur, and it would keep those with a track record of violence behind bars. Police unions have told us we need this. Advocacy groups, frontline workers, women and victim survivors have all told us they need this. They all told us to strengthen the penalties of intimate partner violence, to automatically make murder of an intimate partner first-degree murder, regardless of why or how it happened. They told us, most importantly, to put victims first, and that is exactly what my colleague's bill would do.

I can only hope that everybody in this place reconsiders, stands up, does the right thing, remembers exactly why we came here and supports this piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start off by recognizing that I do not believe that there is a member of Parliament in the House who does not appreciate our need, as parliamentarians, to look at what happens to victims of intimate partner violence. It is a very serious issue. I believe that every member of Parliament, and it does not matter which political entity they are a part of, wants to do what they can to minimize the intimate partner violence that takes place in our nation.

To the families that have been affected over the years, as victims, families and friends of those victims, I would extend my personal condolences, thoughts and prayers. I can understand and appreciate the destruction it causes within a family unit. When I talk about the family unit, I am talking about extended families. It has a profoundly negative impact, and that is why I say, without any hesitation, that all members of the House of Commons, I would like to think, are very sensitive to this very important public issue.

Thinking of the victims, I would like to turn it around a little here and emphasize that there are many instances of intimate partner violence that go unreported. Unfortunately, and sadly, we have individuals in society who are constantly abused, whether physically or mentally, for years, as has been pointed out. I know that the person proposing the legislation is aware of this.

We can imagine, if we will, being a young woman who has been subjected to all sorts of mental and physical abuse in a relationship but who, out of fear, does not necessarily report it. There are reasons why that happens. If the legislation were to pass, that victim I just described could become a victim of the legislation. Ultimately, for the individual who I have described, if there is something that takes place that triggers the death of her or his partner, the legislation would automatically say that it should be first-degree murder. This is the impact that this would also have. We know for a fact that there are endless victims of domestic violence in our communities who do not report.

I know this first-hand. I have dealt with victims who are coming to talk to me, to share their experiences. We try, as much as possible, to encourage, to look for support groups, such as women's shelters, and to look at ways in which society and our system could support that victim in receiving some sort of justice. Often, it is not just the one victim. A lot of those victims of domestic abuse also have young children. They too, in essence, become victims.

That is why I say that, at the end of the day, I would like to think that there is not a member of the House of Commons who is not sympathetic and who does not want to see actions taken in domestic abuse. The member brought forward the legislation and said that there are two things that come to mind. One is to pass the legislation and to pass it immediately. I have often articulated the importance of passing government legislation. This legislation is actually programmed.

Could members imagine if I were to put on limits, saying that for every government bill, there would be only two hours of debate at second reading and then it would go to committee? This particular individual says this legislation should be going to committee, virtually without debate. It is just like how the Conservatives attempted to bring through an opposition day motion on the issue. I wish we could get that sort of sympathy toward government legislation dealing with the victims of crime, such as the bail legislation that will be coming out very soon, but I suspect we will not see it.

The member was critical of me many months ago because of some so-called reaction I had when he brought in legislation. That was absolutely bogus. He tried to bring forward an issue that had nothing to do with the content of the legislation and had everything to do with the behaviour of the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things at issue. Number one is that the member cannot call another member—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Debate.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo does not seem to want to give me the chance to speak today.

The member spoke about my conduct and what I said as “bogus”. Indirectly or directly, he cannot impugn another's character like that—