Status of Women Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[Sabrina Nadeau]

Of course, money is required. That said, we also need pilot projects to encourage initiatives that are currently working on the ground. We can also draw inspiration from things that work, such as rapid response units, which enable everyone involved to work together and raise the red flag when there is a risk of homicide.

In addition, we have pilot projects that enable suspects to be in a rehabilitation house—that is, to live in a house under supervision—with resources available 24/7 and an obligation to undergo therapy in one of our resources.

Lastly, collaboration on the ground between police forces and our organizations enables us to call the suspect after the police intervention to recommend services. That has been working very well for two years now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Now we will go to Mr. Caputo for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses, Madame Nadeau and Monsieur Sauvé. I appreciate this. I am the drafter of this bill, so I obviously have a great deal of interest in how things play out at this committee.

I will say one thing at the beginning.

We're here to talk about Bill C-225. The last time we had victims here whose loved ones were killed by virtue of intimate partner violence, there were questions about Bill C-16 put forward. I know that will also happen today. I get how politics work. I get how things work at committees. However, we have to retain the focus on Bill C-225, period. In my view, this is not the time or place to attempt to leverage another bill like Bill C-16 when we have a very important matter before us, Bill C-225. Particularly last time, when we had victims and witnesses here with respect to Bill C-225.... I invite this committee to stick to Bill C-225. The place to discuss Bill C-16 is here in this room, but not at present.

With that, I will discuss Bill C-225.

Mr. Sauvé, one thing I consulted some peace officers on was something you just mentioned. It was the notion of holding somebody for bail.

For those who aren't aware, a police officer generally has discretion regarding whether they release somebody at the scene or hold them for court. By “hold them for court”, I mean hold them for a bail hearing, in which case the judge does that. Now, the current law as it stands is this: A person must be released on the least onerous conditions at the earliest possibility. I don't think there's any dispute with the law on that. The reason I incorporated this into the bill is to essentially work around the current law, because intimate partner violence is different in that it has the highest victim pool, frankly, when it comes to homicide, ongoing violence and the cycle of violence.

Can you comment on whether this discretion is something that...? When I say, “this discretion”, I mean whether the courts being required to do this adds a measure of seriousness to the release order, as opposed to an officer releasing at the scene.

[Brian Sauvé]

Well, for sure, as I mentioned in response to the previous question, our members would appreciate clarity in taking that decision-making or that discretion away from them, meaning if we're talking about an intimate partner violence offence, whether it's one of the new ones that's proposed or whether it's an existing domestic assault offence, then you're going to court. Great, let's put together the package. There's clarity from the perspective of the accused, and there's clarity from the perspective of the police.

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

Thank you. That was a very comprehensive answer.

Madame Nadeau, do you have anything to add on that?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

I'm very pleased that you've added to the bill the requirement to have an assessment by the court. I think that, in cases of repeat offences or breaches of probation, a judge should rule on the person's dangerousness and be able to impose conditions.

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

Thank you both for your comments.

I'll just add, in regard to what you said, that intimate partner violence cases are so different in that somebody might never have been before the court and yet still be a substantial threat to their intimate partner that we don't see with respect to other offences.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we will go to Madame Ménard.

Ms. Ménard, go ahead for five minutes.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé. Your return to the committee is already very enlightening.

Thank you, as well, Ms. Nadeau.

In this committee, we are very focused on support for victims and survivors. It's a committee where, year after year, the members are working very well together, in a collaborative and constructive spirit. I think it is responsible, important and healthy to compare the various proposals, not to invalidate anything, but rather to ensure that, at the end of the day, victims are honoured and survivors are supported.

Ms. Nadeau, in your opening remarks, you warned the committee about the possibility of increasing the number of offences. Bill C‑16, as drafted by the Minister of Justice, proposes to criminalize coercive control. So that, in and of itself, is a separate offence.

Do you see this as superfluous addition, or do you see it as a real added value?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

I see it as a real value added. That's exactly what is needed. I think that would be the solution, since these behaviours are not currently being exposed. We already have assault and violence. Everyone knows that physical violence, bullying and harassment are criminal acts, but, in my opinion, all the strategies surrounding that, which may seem trivial in a context that is not a context of domestic violence, must be exposed.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Obviously, there are two main situations. One is what can be done to support families once their loved ones are gone forever. I am sending as much courage as possible to the McCourt family. What they will have to go through is horrible. There are no words strong enough to support them. The other one is prevention, which I would like us to talk about. In particular, there are femicides that have not yet been committed. As a society, we still have time to act.

Ms. Nadeau, you talk about prevention. You have 30 years of experience on the ground. You seem to be saying that not only is behavioural change possible, but it can even be permanent. Things are never completely permanent, but that's still important. Can you expand a little bit on what you mean by that? If I understood correctly, this should be part of a preventive approach, which must be financially supported.

[Sabrina Nadeau]

Since the “Rebâtir la confiance” report was written in Quebec, it has really been recognized that we must deal with perpetrators of violence and intervene with them.

In terms of homicide prevention, our organization worked with researchers—more than 12 years ago—to develop the first tool that detected the risk of homicide in the discourse of perpetrators of violence. Often, the risk is detected because the victim talks and says she's in danger, but we really work on the side of the perpetrator. We wonder how we can determine whether that person is dangerous.

We've also trained the probation officers who work with this clientele. A lot of training has been provided, and it was always related to victim protection, which is absolutely necessary. However, when it comes to monitoring perpetrators of violence, if we want to seal the service trajectory and ensure that monitoring of perpetrators in the courts is done in a consistent and safe manner, people need to be trained to intervene with this clientele.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Very briefly, do you think the government has played a role in funding prevention measures?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

Yes. The Status of Women Secretariat did that as part of COVID‑19 funding. The funding has been very helpful in making sure that we have the right players on the ground.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Nadeau.

Mr. Sauvé, as you said, the world is changing and it is often more complex than it seems. Are tougher laws the only way to prevent femicides?

[Brian Sauvé]

Yes and no.

Everything needs to work hand in hand. I know there are discussions about digital lawful access. I know there are discussions going on about bail reform. There are discussions about changing different offences. All of those things—especially once we get to digital lawful access, online harassment and all of that great stuff—should prove fruitful. Really, they should be working hand in hand versus in silos.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent.

That is the end of our first panel. I want to thank our witnesses. If there are comments you'd like to provide to the clerk that you didn't get a chance to say in your testimony, we'd love to receive them. Thank you so much for being with us today.

I'll briefly suspend so we can switch to our next panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Welcome back. We are in our second panel talking about Bill C-225.

I want to welcome the witnesses here for the second hour. We have, from the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Raneem Yaseen.

Next, from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, we have Karine Barrette, lawyer and project manager, and Louise Riendeau, co-lead, political affairs.

Welcome.

We will begin with opening remarks.

Ms. Yaseen, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Raneem Yaseen, Project Lawyer, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Raneem Yaseen. I am the project lawyer for the criminalization and survivorship project at the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic. I'm appearing on behalf of the executive director of the clinic.

The clinic has supported women and gender-diverse survivors of violence for over 40 years through trauma- and violence-informed legal services and advocacy. We can't support Bill C‑225, as currently drafted, not because of its intent, but because of how its language will operate in practice.

I want to briefly ground our concerns in our data and legal experience. Between September 2022 and September 2025, our criminalization of women project recorded over 1,200 admissions and service files. These are survivors of gender-based violence who are charged with criminal offences in the context of abuse. This volume tells us that survivor criminalization is systemic, not exceptional. Our clients face intersecting barriers.

We've supported survivors across Toronto and multiple districts, including rural and northern areas. Services were provided in over 25 languages, which directly affects whether survivors can understand conditions, comply with court orders and safely navigate the criminal justice system.

We also see how violence creates instability. A number of our files were discharged, because the client could not be contacted. This can often be due to housing precarity, fear, surveillance by an abusive partner or crisis.

Through our court observation project, more than half of the observed criminal matters involved intimate partner violence, and we repeatedly saw peace bonds applied without regard to differing levels of severity, breaches treated as technical non-compliance rather than ongoing coercive control, and language that minimized survivors' lived realities.

This is the system that Bill C‑225 will function within, and the bill expands criminalization through new IPV-specific offences with higher penalties, mandatory detention rules, expanded custody for risk assessment and automatic legal classifications. Our concern is straightforward. The bill assumes that the problem is a lack of criminal tools. Our data shows that the problem is how existing tools are applied without context.

In our legal practice, survivors are routinely misidentified as primary aggressors, dual-charged or drawn into repeated court contact through breaches that function as coercive control and litigation abuse.

Expanding offences and penalties without explicit survivor-centred interpretation will widen the net. It will increase the number of survivors—particularly racialized, indigenous, migrant and low-income survivors—and expose them to more serious charges, detention and prolonged system involvement. Automatic detention and custody provisions further remove discretion and context. They don't distinguish between patterns of domination and acts of survival. From our practice, that distinction is critical to safety and justice.

The clinic is asking the committee to amend Bill C‑225 in three targeted ways.

The first is to add explicit survivor-centric interpretive language. The bill should require that intimate partner violence be assessed in context, including coercive control, power, imbalance, fear and survival strategies.

The second is to build in safeguards against misidentification and dual-charging. Expanded criminalization without guardrails will predictably increase survivor criminalization. Criminal justice actors must be required to actively consider misidentification before charges, detention or escalated conditions.

The third is to limit mandatory detention and custody powers. Automatic rules should be replaced with contextual risk-based assessments that explicitly consider survivor safety and the risk of increased harm through continued court contact. These aren't radical changes; they're necessary safeguards.

The clinic supports serious action on intimate partner violence, but the Criminal Code is a powerful instrument, and language matters. From our data and our legal work, we know that without explicit survivor-centred safeguards, reforms intended to protect can instead punish.

We urge the committee to amend Bill C‑C‑225 so that it addresses violence without increasing the criminalization of survivors.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Also appearing with us today, from the National Family and Survivors Circle, is Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, the president.

I invite you to make your remarks for five minutes.

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, President, National Family and Survivors Circle Inc.]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I come before you as a witness to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and as the president of the National Family and Survivors Circle Inc.

The national inquiry's final report is grounded in truths, shared by more than 2,380 family members, survivors, experts and knowledge-keepers. It issued 231 calls for justice. These calls for justice are legal imperatives directed at governments, institutions and industries to end systemic conditions that continue to place indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people at heightened risk of violence.

Today, as you study Bill C-225, which seeks to strengthen Criminal Code responses to intimate partner violence, I urge the committee to ensure that any legislative reform aligns with the 231 calls for justice and meaningfully improves safety for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

I have some recommendations. Number one is to require an indigenous-specific safety and impact review. Before advancing Bill C-225, conduct a distinctions-based and gender-based analysis examining how the proposed amendments may impact indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, including potential unintended consequences such as over-policing or barriers to reporting violence.

Number two is to pair Criminal Code reform and prevention investments. Legislative reform must be accompanied by guaranteed funding for prevention measures, including safe housing, culturally grounded healing programs, legal supports and community-led safety initiatives. Without these measures, legal reform alone will not prevent violence.

Number three is to ensure trauma-informed and culturally safe risk assessments. If Bill C-225 introduces risk assessment tools, they must include mandatory trauma-informed and culturally safe training standards to prevent bias and ensure victim safety is prioritized.

Number four is to address safety and resource development contexts. The calls for justice 13.1 to 13.5 highlight the responsibility of extractive and development industries to prevent violence in resource regions. Intimate partner violence reforms must be connected to prevention efforts in high-risk regions and accompanied by adequate community infrastructure supports.

Number five is to establish measurable accountability in reporting to Parliament. The committee should recommend transparent reporting mechanisms to track whether Bill C-225 reduces violence and improves outcomes for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. This aligns with calls for justice 1.7 and 1.10, which emphasize independent oversight and annual reporting to Parliament.

If Bill C-225 is to have meaningful impact, it must do more than amend the Criminal Code. It must be paired with prevention, culturally safe implementation and enforced accountability. The safety and dignity of indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people are not abstract policy issues. They are matters of human rights, justice and survival. I urge this committee to ensure that any legislative action taken strengthens protection in real, measurable and structural ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Ekosi.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much.

We will now hear from Karine Barrette and Louise Riendeau, from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Louise Riendeau, Co-Lead, Political Affairs, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

Good morning.

We thank the committee for inviting us to present our views on Bill C‑225.

The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale applauds the desire to increase sentences for domestic violence offences by creating specific offences and increasing the applicable sentences. The justice system must send a clear message that not only does our society condemn this violence, it is also cracking down on it. We do nonetheless have concerns with the approach being proposed here.

Bill C‑225 maintains the approach of laying charges for isolated incidents, whereas domestic violence involves a series of behaviours characterized by control and violence. We clearly prefer the approach taken in Bill C‑16, which creates the offence of coercive or controlling conduct against an intimate partner and would treat femicide by an intimate partner as first-degree murder in the presence of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct.

Bill C‑16 therefore seeks to criminalize a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct involving any combination or repetition of the following acts: using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence against an intimate partner; coercing or attempting to coerce the intimate partner to engage in sexual activity; or any other behaviour, including monitoring the intimate partner, controlling how they care for a child, controlling any matter relating to their employment or education, economic control, controlling their physical appearance, clothing, food or care, controlling their opinions, beliefs or culture, as well as threats of suicide or self-harm.

Bill C‑16 therefore includes all offences covered in clauses 1 to 6 of Bill C‑225. Considering these offences in isolation without considering whether there is a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct can lead to injustices, particularly toward victims.

Three types of people could be charged under Bill C‑225: a controlling spouse who used violence to maintain their domination and terrorize their intimate partner; a spouse who, in an isolated situation, used violence against their intimate partner; a spouse who was a victim of violence who used violence to defend herself during an intimate partner assault. In all three cases, a person could be charged with assaulting an intimate partner or causing bodily harm to an intimate partner, or even murder, when the actual situation is very different.

We still regularly see women who have caused injuries or marks on the body of their abusive partner as he tried to strangle them without leaving a mark on the victim's neck or face. Often, the woman doesn't remember what happened because she fainted. Unfortunately, these women are not always well defended. Too often, their lawyer encourages them to plead guilty, despite all the consequences that a criminal record can have. Under Bill C‑225, they could receive a longer sentence. We maintain that an approach that considers the history of violence and the presence of various kinds of control will provide more justice for victims.

We were interested, though, in clauses 8 and 9 of Bill C‑225. In Quebec, we have various programs to enhance the safety of victims of domestic violence. These are as follows: the assessment of offenders at the interim release stage, the use of an electronic bracelet, the follow-up service for accused persons and the residential housing program. However, none of these programs can be used if the offender is not detained in custody. Unfortunately, because of the principle of restraint prescribed by the Supreme Court and enshrined in the Criminal Code, many police officers feel obliged to release violent spouses, even if they are repeat offenders or offenders under a release order in connection with an offence committed against an intimate partner.

We therefore support clause 8 which prevents a peace officer from releasing offenders in these two situations. In requiring them to appear before the court, the court system will be able to assess the possibility of using one of those programs, or even keeping the offenders in custody.

In terms of assessing offenders for domestic violence, one of the limitations of the Quebec program is that it's voluntary and lawyers advise their clients not to participate. We think what is proposed in clause 9 of the bill is promising.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

We will start our first round of questions with Madame Vien.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies, thank you for being here. We see your faces once in a while. We often see you in the public space, and every time we invite you, you show up. We know how busy your schedules are.

This is not an easy situation. We don't manage easy situations at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It seems that the bill before us is similar to any other bill in that we can strengthen and improve it by making amendments. I think we're all working constructively. In fact, the sponsor of the bill is with us today and will have the opportunity to speak to you. That said, that's why you're here, to get us thinking about various aspects and contexts.

I can say that, on the whole, Bill C‑225 has been quite positively received in a number of settings, including in the justice system and the police. I understand that you may have different points of view, reservations, fears or warnings to make in various respects, and you are in the right place and in front of the right people to do so.

I'd like to point out that, in Quebec, unless things have changed, our data shows that there have already been six femicides this year. This is devastating, and the year has barely started. It is all very worrisome. A woman is murdered every two days in Canada. When I learned that, it sent chills down my spine. I never thought we would see those numbers in Canada. According to the Government of Canada's website, 240 women were murdered in 2024. This bill is not perfect, but we think it can be a step in the right direction. That's what Mr. Sauvé, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said earlier.

Let me begin with you, Ms. Yaseen. You are obviously quite critical of Bill C‑225. You said a lot of things in a short time earlier; I wrote down as much information as possible. You said that, between 2022 and 2025, a lot of women who found themselves in problematic or violent situations were criminalized. You warned us to be careful about what could go wrong under Bill C‑225.

Did I understand your point of view correctly? If so, please elaborate on the safeguards against misidentification that you also mentioned at the outset.