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

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

moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but today it is a particular pleasure, a distinct pleasure, because today I believe I rise on behalf of all Canadians to report on an epidemic, something that touches all Canadians, which is intimate partner violence. This is a non-partisan issue. In drafting this bill, I deliberately made it as non-partisan as possible. I know sometimes things get quite partisan in the House, but this bill, in my view, and I say this with the greatest of sincerity, is a non-partisan bill to address the epidemic of intimate partner violence.

I have spoken with a number of stakeholders, a number of people who have experienced intimate partner violence. I received those notes, and to anybody who is watching or listening today, please know that we hear their heartfelt words. When a victim pours out their heart to us in a note, saying that they were a victim of intimate partner violence and feel heard in a bill, it is my view that we should heed these words and pass that bill expeditiously.

I know watching online today is the family of Bailey McCourt. For those who are unaware, Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her, and within hours, he left the courtroom and murdered her. That allegation is before the court. Along with her was one of her friends, a relatively new friend, who survived.

Bailey's family reached out to me a couple of weeks ago, and they asked that this law be known as Bailey's law. As politicians, we will sometimes attach a name to a law. I did not feel it was my place to do that, but when a victim's family reaches out and asks that this be done, it is not something we should easily ignore. I know Bailey's aunt Debbie is watching today, being the spokesperson for the McCourt family. I also had the opportunity to meet with Bailey's father Shane and stepmom Trish this past week during the break week. I hope I'm not paraphrasing inappropriately, but they provided unequivocal support for this bill.

People are watching. Canadians, victims and women's organizations are watching. I have received countless emails, correspondence and feedback from women's organizations. Why is that? It is because this bill would create the distinct offence of assault on an intimate partner. Right now, in the Criminal Code, assault does not distinguish between who someone assaults. The only distinguishment is if someone assaults a peace officer. We distinguish between assaulting a peace officer and assaulting someone in the general public, but we do not distinguish between punching somebody out at the bar and punching out an intimate partner, two very different things. One is a relationship predicated on trust, intimacy and sometimes dependence, as in financial dependence or the commingling of assets. The other happens randomly. When it comes to intimate partners, they are the most likely to experience a homicide, yet we in this House have stood idle, despite time after time this being brought up in the House.

The second thing this bill would do is create a charge of first-degree murder when somebody kills their intimate partner. Right now, first-degree murder is colloquially called “premeditated” in the United States and “planned and deliberate” in Canada. The other aspect of first-degree murder is that someone can be found guilty of first-degree murder when they commit a predicate offence, as in they kidnap somebody. The third is the killing of a peace officer.

This bill would make a fourth category, which is the killing of an intimate partner. We have to deter and denounce this conduct, and more concretely, this House has to speak out about the killing of intimate partners, with a loud voice. This bill would do that.

Third, this bill would create a risk assessment. Right now, generally, the only mechanism to bring somebody before the court who is accused of intimate partner violence is when they breach their conditions. An accused person may be escalating to the point where they are a risk to their intimate partner without having breached their conditions. This bill would allow a judge to compel a person to go to court for an up to seven-day risk assessment so we can intercede before there is another victim.

Doing this for seven days, I understand, is a deprivation of liberty, but in the grand scheme of things, based on the number of victims we are seeing, we have to intervene. This bill would permit a court to independently say, at the request of a victim or the prosecutor or through the court's own volition, that it is concerned about the safety of a victim and will make a determination on whether a victim will be safe pending trial, even if the person was granted bail.

Fourth, this bill would update the law of detention. Most people do not know much about section 490 of the Criminal Code, which was written probably 30 or 40 years ago, when people went to trial within three to six months. Right now, a police officer has to go to court every three months to renew the detention of something seized until charges are approved. I have been told this is the biggest time-waster that police experience in British Columbia. If somebody's computer is seized with child sexual abuse and exploitation material and the review takes 15 months, an officer will have gone to court four times, served the application four times and written four affidavits. In rural policing, they might be travelling two hours to deliver them.

These are common-sense and non-partisan issues. I have a rhetorical question. I am not sure who is going to be speaking on behalf of the Liberals or the Bloc, but I invite them to say at the outset whether they be supporting this bill. In fact, they can go one step further today and can allow debate to collapse. What that means is that we would vote on this bill forthwith.

I do not know why we would prolong the current law of intimate partner violence, or the lack thereof, for another day. Why would we let the status quo exist for another day? This House can resoundingly denounce the current state, where women far too often see intimate partner violence, period. There are men who experience intimate partner violence, although it is disproportionately women. This House can denounce it right here, right now. If we allow debate to collapse, we can get this bill to committee forthwith.

To whoever stands up for the Liberals, I invite them to take the first five seconds of their question to say whether they will allow debate to collapse and whether they will be supporting this bill. As I said, Bailey McCourt's family is watching; Canadians are watching.

When it comes to intimate partner violence, in 2023, there were 123,319 victims aged 12 years and older, and firearms were present in over 1,000 cases. The year 2014 marked the lowest rates of IPV since comparable data became available. I wonder what happened in 2015. I am trying to remember. Since then, from 2014 to 2022, police-reported IPV rates increased 19% for women and girls and 21% for men and boys. In that period, intimate partner sexual assault increased 163%.

I introduced a bill previously, Bill C-299, that would have raised the sexual assault maximum to life imprisonment. I was actually heckled by two members of the Liberal Party when I did that. How do we stand in the way of this? How do we stand in the way of the bill when we have an increase of 163% of sexual assault against intimate partners? They are the people who are most likely to die at the hands of their partner.

Intimate partner physical assault has increased 14%. I may sound like a broken record. It feels as though we could hear a pin drop in this place. Why are we waiting? Will the Liberals allow debate to collapse? If the Liberals are not prepared to do that, are they prepared to support the bill? Are they prepared to address this on a consent motion so that we can make the bill law as quickly as possible?

Most of my adult life has been spent in the justice system. I cannot tell members how many victims I have dealt with on this issue. There are people who live very good lives otherwise; everything appears perfectly normal, yet behind closed doors, these people are repeatedly victimized. This offence spans every socio-economic group. It does not matter whether someone is low income, working class or rich. They are at risk for intimate partner violence.

Fifty-five per cent of women who experience physical or sexual intimate partner violence feared a partner at some point. Being afraid of a partner can indicate intimate partner violence that is more coercive, more severe and more likely to reflect a pattern of abusive behaviours.

In my home province of British Columbia, the Union of BC Municipalities, also known as UBCM, had its convention in Victoria from September 22 to 26. The Union of BC Municipalities endorsed a motion for B.C. to declare gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and human trafficking an epidemic in the province and to update its action plan to combat human trafficking.

In this House, we are expected to hear from the people on the ground. We are expected to reflect that in the laws we pass. Often, in the laws we pass, there are poison pills that are put in, wedge issues and such things. There is no wedge here. There is simply a desire on my part and a desire from the people on this side of the House, and I can speak only for my colleagues, to get the bill passed as soon as possible. The Union of BC Municipalities is not specifically asking for this, but it is asking for action when it passes a resolution of this sort.

I have spoken with Angela MacDougall from Battered Women's Support Services. People from that organization attended the UBCM conference in Victoria to push for these actions: having a municipal, gender-based violence task force to stabilize frontline services; standardizing risk assessment, and this bill actually has a risk assessment built into it, a mechanism by which the court can bring somebody before it; launching a province-wide prevention campaign; and appointing a gender-based violence lead.

I am grateful to our deputy leader, the member for Thornhill, for seconding this important bill and speaking to this important bill. I reiterate that this bill should be passed. It should be passed quickly. It should go to committee as quickly as possible.

Victims are watching. Let us get Bailey's law passed. Will the Liberals do that? Will they agree to let debate collapse so that this can get to a vote and get to committee? Those are my questions because I know we have to address this and address it now.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House and to be able to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo.

I agree with the hon. member that we need to represent the people on the ground. We need to know that Canadians are watching. We need to represent the very people who sent us here.

The constituents within the riding of Waterloo have diverse views. Several are asking how Conservatives are coming to this moment when they voted against capacity funding for organizations serving women, and they feel right now that Conservatives want to see the books balanced rather than supporting the organizations needing that support.

Conservatives voted against pay equity, which could give those very individuals the member is referring to the opportunity to exist and be able to succeed. They voted against early learning and child care. They voted against the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

Constituents in the riding of Waterloo are asking when Conservatives will recognize that victims should have the opportunity to exist and that the federal government has a role to play. If this budget supports organizations serving women, will they stand with women or continue to play the partisan politics they are playing with the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the member just referred to partisan politics with respect to the bill. I will look her right in the eye and say that there is absolutely nothing partisan about the bill.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Then vote for the budget.

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

I would like to continue if the hon. member would give me a chance to speak about this.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing partisan about the bill. It is the most significant intervention on the law of intimate partner violence ever, yet the Liberals want to stand up and accuse us of partisanship. Good grief. This is so wrong.

I asked if the Liberals would support this. There has not been one word out of the member's mouth about whether they will support this. There has not been one word out of the member's mouth as to whether this debate would collapse. I say shame on the Liberals for not answering those questions.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for his speech and for his concern and his leadership when it comes to these issues.

I should point out that the member for Rivière-du-Nord will be presenting the Bloc Québécois's position on this issue, while acknowledging the member for Shefford's leadership in such matters.

Quebec has already implemented several legislative measures to address family violence, particularly through initiatives such as the publication of a report on rebuilding trust and the creation of special tribunals for cases involving sexual and family violence. How will Bill C-225 ensure that federal criminal law reflects and supports the progress that has already been made in Quebec? Do we not run the risk of creating legislative overlap that could undermine the administration of justice in such cases? How can we ensure that this bill respects Quebec's jurisdiction?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful intervention. I do not see this as a doubling up of efforts. At the end of the day, calling an offence what it is, the assault of an intimate partner, is not the doubling up of effort. Allowing the court more tools to bring somebody before it in order to perform a risk assessment is not the doubling up of effort.

I appreciate all that has been done. Obviously, I do not know every single thing or mechanism that has been done in the member's home province of Quebec, but I appreciate the words. I look forward to working with the members of the Bloc in the hope that they will support the bill as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his comments on what sort of consultation was done prior to his introducing the bill.

All Canadians are concerned about the issue. The concern I have is that this is just another American-style type of legislation being proposed without consultations having been done with Canadians, in particular, women's shelters and other stakeholders.

Can the member tell the House what consultations he has done?

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

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House that my 10 years as a Crown prosecutor was a substantial base to start with. I spoke with people from women's groups, victims of intimate partner violence, police officers and countless people.

I am at a loss right now. This is quite possibly the most non-partisan bill that could have been authored. There is nothing partisan about the bill.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo said that I should keep drinking it. Shame.

[An hon. member]

That is not what she said.

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

Then what did she say, “Keep thinking it”?

Madam Speaker, it is the most non-partisan bill that could have been authored. The member from Winnipeg heckled when I introduced the bill on sexual assault. The Liberals are saying that this is American-style politics. I say shame on every single one of those—

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

The member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important, when it is a serious topic such as this, that we represent members accordingly. He said what I said, then he said what I said again, and they do not match. I would just ask the member to stay focused on the topic and have a debate, and sometimes—