Status of Women Committee on Nov. 17th, 2025

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

One question per party would be great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Okay, let's do that.

We'll start then, with Dominique, or you can share your time, five minutes-ish.

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

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

About four minutes.

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

Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is for Ms. Gagnon.

I haven’t provided all the details about the increase in crimes against women, given the limited time I have, but it is a real phenomenon. The numbers are very high.

To explain this increase, Ms. Gagnon, you said that it might be due to the fact that women are reporting more crimes. I remember that the same thing was said to explain the very high rate of reports to the Youth Protection Division.

Do you not think that Bill C‑5, which allowed suspended sentences to be served at home, and Bill C‑75, which allowed dangerous people to be released, have something to do with it?

You don’t have to look far. Just think of the case of Ms. McCourt in British Columbia, or the case of Ms. Renaud in September. These are very recent events. What is happening is frightening.

Don’t you think that Bills C‑5 and C‑75 have played a major role in the increase in the number of crimes of this type committed over the past 10 years? Even the Minister of Justice has said that there has been a 41% increase in crime in Canada over the past 10 years.

We must not overlook the consequences of these two bills, which C‑14 attempts to remedy, but which, in my opinion, will only be partially successful. Do you not think that Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5 played a major role in our failure to protect women?

[Karine Gagnon]

Obviously, I am not in a position to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these two things.

As we mentioned, what particularly concerns us is that the needs of victims must be truly taken into account when determining appropriate sentences. They must be given the space they need to express themselves in this regard. Among their needs is safety, not only physical safety, but also psychological safety. In our view, these are important considerations that should be given greater weight.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, the idea is not to take away the rights of perpetrators of violence, but to restore the balance so that the rights of victims are given greater consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Sorry, again, your connection is fading out. You can respond in writing to the clerk.

Madame Vien, you have some time left.

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

These technical problems are really unpleasant. We really need to find a way to fix them.

I assume I don’t have much speaking time left, but I will now address Ms. Davis.

My colleague Mr. Caputo has introduced Bill C‑225, which would make the murder of an intimate partner a first-degree murder.

What are your thoughts on this, Ms. Davis?

[Jennifer Davis]

I think, again, you would need to look at the facts and issue of the case and whether it actually meets the definition of first-degree murder in the Criminal Code.

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

Thank you very much.

Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 55%; homicides by 30%; sexual assaults by 76%; crimes committed with firearms by 130%; vehicle thefts by 25%; and extortion by 330%. I could go on and on.

I can’t wait for people to wake up to this, to talk about victims’ rights and to determine how to make them a priority. Several bills on this subject have been introduced in the House of Commons, but they have died on the Order Paper. That’s a shame. Let’s take stock of what is currently happening in Quebec, which has seen its 15th femicide since the beginning of 2025. I don’t know how many more there will be.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much.

Now we'll go to Ms. Fancy for four minutes.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you very much. Thank you to my colleague Madame Vien for her question. I'm going to follow up with a very similar question.

I'd like to go to Ms. Mattoo.

The clinic that you work with works very closely with survivors to navigate these complex legal systems, often providing counselling, interpretation and trauma-informed legal aid. The work that you're doing is amazing.

From your experience, to follow up on Madame Vien's question, would a law focus solely on harsher sentencing, like Mr. Caputo's private member's bill C-225?

Do you feel that that would truly address the barriers that survivors are facing?

[Deepa Mattoo]

Unfortunately, I have to say “no”. If just harsher sentencing and more punitive measures were the solution, we would have made at least some dent.

I want to remind this committee that the government of this country made a decision to make forced marriages a crime, and as of today I haven't seen one single successful prosecution under that change in the Criminal Code. There are lots of changes made in the Criminal Code for protecting women. Unfortunately, they don't make a dent on the ground. We also have many crimes where we have the reverse onus provision currently. In fact, the jumping of bail that we're talking about is a reverse onus crime, but so many people are let go on that reverse onus.

I think the solution lies in much deeper intervention. That sits with providing supports and providing more intervention for the perpetrators. We need to create more accountability. That accountability starts with better supports and better education.

The last point I want to make in answer to your question is about educating our young people, but educating them at a very young age. I'm not talking about educating youth. I'm talking about educating children in schools. That's where this education needs to start.

Thank you.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's wonderful.

With my remaining time, if you can indulge me, Madam Chair, I have a question for Ms. Davis.

I'm wondering if you could please speak to the role that firearms play in IPV cases in regard to interventions with firearms and carriers. I ask this because I live in a rural riding, where I have a lot of farmers who have a firearm.

[Jennifer Davis]

With Bill C-21, we saw the restriction of certain firearms, assault-style firearms. I appreciate that there are many law-abiding, registered firearms owners, but as I mentioned to you, to go back to my speaking notes, the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee did find that in about 25% of all cases, especially in cases where there were documented reports of prior intimate partner violence incidents, a firearm was used in the cases reviewed where homicide was committed. We know that in 58% of those same cases, it ended up in a homicide-suicide situation. We know that in many of those situations, it is either the individual on their own or through an intervention by police when that incident happens.

So firearms are a concern. They should be a concern to all of us. I appreciate the fact that under section 810.03, we can actually require the surrender of all firearms and also the suspension or revocation of the PAL. I think that's a necessary step. Will it prevent all cases? No, because illegal firearms may still be used, but at the same time, if it prevents one, it's serving its intended purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for the last intervention. You have four minutes of speaking time.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to point out that we have been talking a lot about education for some time now. I had the opportunity to experience this tool called “Les couloirs de la violence amoureuse”, or “Behind the curtains of dating violence”. So I am thinking about this tool that you mentioned, Ms. Gagnon. It is true that it is a truly striking experience. This type of violence is making a strong comeback, particularly among teenagers. Unfortunately, it sometimes feels like we are taking a step backwards. So we hope that other young people will be able to experience this.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask Ms. Auger some more questions, but I will turn to Ms. Huet, if her connection allows us to do so.

Since I have the last word, I would like you to tell the committee what you think would be the most useful thing to do as a priority. Should we strengthen the law, training or partnerships?

[Jackie Huet]

What should be prioritized? It’s difficult to say, because all three things are important. I think the efforts that have been made on these three fronts over the last few years show that they can have an effect when all three are reinforced.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I will ask you the same question, Ms. Davis: If we had one element to strengthen between legislation, training and partnerships, what should be the priority?

[Jennifer Davis]

I firmly believe that the partnerships are imperative. We talked a lot about prevention. I don't think prevention can happen without partnerships and providing those wraparound supports for victims, for youth, for offenders to try and stop and break that cycle of violence early.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In your opinion, Ms. Mattoo, what should be strengthened as a priority: legislation, training or partnerships?

[Deepa Mattoo]

I think we need to do everything together. We need to have rehabilitative and supportive conditions alongside the restrictive measures that we keep on focusing on. Alone, it cannot work. I can't emphasize enough the resources that need to be allocated to the justice system. Overall, we need more judges. We need more lawyers. We need more trained Crown. We need more cops on the streets. It's not necessarily one thing. Along with that, we need mental health support and supports for the GBV organizations.

As long as we don't have everything and good training, we are not going to be able to plug this. The problem is too big. Someone asked earlier why we call it an epidemic. It's because we want it to be tackled at the level of COVID. It required $925 billion to solve that problem. That's the level of investment this problem needs.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I have 30 seconds left.

When it comes to training, another thing we often hear about, and which seems to be unanimously agreed upon, is that coercive control needs to be better recognized, and more tools need to be provided in this regard.

I don’t know if anyone would like to respond, in 15 or 20 seconds, to the question I was going to ask Ms. Auger earlier: Do the staff involved and the police receive sufficient training on coercive control, or should we consider strengthening this aspect as well, if we decide to criminalize it?

[Deepa Mattoo]

I think the police officers don't have enough training on context, period. I'm sorry if I jumped in, if that wasn't a question for me. I think the police officers don't have the training on context and contextualization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

It's no problem. It was a great answer, but that is the end of our time.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. I apologize to the ones for whom we had connection issues. As I said, please, I encourage you to send your comments to the chair. We really value that as a committee. Thanks to all of you for the great work that you do and for your time today.

Now on Wednesday, I just want to let the committee know that we have two one-hour panels with witnesses still on this study.

Until then, the meeting is adjourned.