Status of Women Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[Raneem Yaseen]

I do want to take the opportunity to clarify.

Our criminalization of women project looks at criminalized survivors. These are survivors of domestic violence and abuse who are actually criminalized and face a charge. They are coming to us for summary legal advice.

The concerning trend that we're seeing is that the project sees approximately five new clients a week. This is very troubling for us, because that means there are survivors being criminalized that frequently. This is likely due to mandatory charging policies that require police to lay charges in domestic violence cases where the officer believes there are reasonable grounds.

In theory, that was a protective piece of policy. However, what we've seen in practice is that it harms survivors. It's actually been used to criminalize them and misidentify them as primary aggressors, which is how they end up in our clinic as clients.

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

We're talking about the possibility of treating the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. Are you afraid that there will be problems identifying a woman or even a man as the person responsible? As I said, men also are victims, but in the vast majority of cases, the victims are women. Are you concerned that things could go sideways in this regard?

[Raneem Yaseen]

The first concern is that the classification, on its face, would remove nuance. For example, it would fail to take into account a long-term history of abuse or cases involving survivors who kill their abusers.

Requiring the courts to consider coercive control, history of abuse and all that—at a stage to create some sort of explicit exemption—is something the clinic would consider in order to safeguard against this.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Yaseen.

Ms. Riendeau, thank you for being here. It seems that you're walking on eggshells regarding Bill C-225. You've talked about Bill C-16, but we would rather talk about Bill C-225, above all, because we have not spent much time on it.

This morning, Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, said it was a step in the right direction. Everything can be improved, of course, but you're not throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to Bill C-225, are you?

[Louise Riendeau]

In fact, we think amendments should be made to reflect what domestic violence really is and to make sure—to prevent any mistakes, as our colleague said—that we can determine whether one of the offences in question was committed in a context of coercive control. That is pretty much what we find in Bill C‑16. We could therefore import the clauses of that bill that reflect the presence of coercive control in the murder of an intimate partner. That would ensure that victims who are unfortunately being charged right now, in cross-complaints—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry. I think this is the worst part of this job.

We're going, now, to Ms. Khalid for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'll start with Ms. Anderson-Pyrz.

Thank you so much for being here, and thank you for your service to the community.

When you appeared at FEWO in November 2025, you said the following about Bill C-225 and the provision to make it automatic first-degree murder for IPV cases:

I think it could be dangerous, especially if a woman is protecting herself during intimate partner violence. As indigenous women, we know that we experience a lot of injustice in the justice system. Often, when we're expressing our lived experiences and our realities, we're ignored. We're dismissed.

How might the new intimate partner violence-specific offences disproportionately impact indigenous and 2SLGBT communities and survivors acting in self-defence?

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

Again, look at the systemic and structural racism that's deeply embedded in the justice system, and at how police respond to intimate partner violence—or violence in general—against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people. There are some risk factors in relation to how they respond and document what has occurred. I've been in this field for a long time, on the front line. There have been a lot of problems in relation to how police treat indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people when they've experienced violence and are reporting a crime that occurred against them.

I think it's critical that we put some mitigation strategies in this bill to address these risk factors in order to ensure the dignity of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people, and that justice is equitable and upholds their inherent and human rights in the process.

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

Thank you for that.

Based on the concerns you outlined, are there any amendments you would propose for Bill C-225 in its current form? If it's yes, can you please share them with us? If it's no, would you advise the committee to vote against this specific section of Bill C-225?

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

I have to be brutally honest as an indigenous woman presenting here today. We're often not given adequate resources to do a comprehensive review of proposed legislation. I'm participating because I feel it's very important that our voices be included in this process. Given that, and given that I'm coming here with my lived experience and knowledge, having briefly reviewed the bill and presenting in the context as I understand it—without having legal representation here—it's kind of difficult to give a fulsome answer to your question.

I would say that any proposed legislation that can ensure that we're protected as indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people—understanding the environments we're coming from and taking that into consideration in relation to the 231 calls for justice—is welcome. However, it has to be done in a way that truly includes us and supports our lived realities.

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

Thank you very much for that.

My second question is for Ms. Barrette.

Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale has criticized the new five IPV-specific offences in Bill C-225, saying that a victim who bites or scratches an attacker while being strangled could be charged just like a controlling and violent spouse. Simply adding the words “between intimate partners” to existing offences risks criminalizing self-defence instead of addressing patterns of control. What we need is an offence focused on coercive control, not relabelling of existing crimes.

Could you please expand on that and share your concerns with us?

[Karine Barrette, Lawyer and Project Manager, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

Yes, and Ms. Riendeau can add to that if she'd like.

What we often see on the ground, as other witnesses have also said, is that the primary aggressor is sometimes not properly analyzed, unfortunately. In the case of strangulation, in particular, it is possible that defensive injuries could be caused by the woman. At the time of the initial police intervention, those injuries will be on the primary aggressor. The victim may sometimes have fewer visible injuries. At that point, the victim will sometimes be arrested as well. Depending on the control mechanisms, some victims may be arrested or even charged with certain acts. If you don't consider the pattern of behaviour at play and instead look solely at an isolated incident, by asking what happened in February, for example, without considering all the dynamics and history of the relationship and what happened before, you can lose sight of the victim's defensive reaction.

Looking at the current wording of Bill C‑235, we think it should at least be amended to add patterns of coercive or controlling conduct, as my colleague Ms. Riendeau said. We should also look at the intent behind that and draw a parallel with the intent of Bill C‑16.

Echoing the witnesses who said that the law itself isn't enough, I would add that training for police and prosecutors is really critical for them to understand which factors determine who is the primary aggressor in a situation, since we know that the victim may have struck the first blow, that the primary aggressor can also call the police first and that the cross-complaint strategy can be used as a coercive control strategy by a lot of aggressors. Unfortunately, some even get advice from their lawyer to file a complaint against the victim.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Ms. Riendeau, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Anderson‑Pyrz. It's always a pleasure to see you here. Or course, that goes for Ms. Yaseen as well.

My first questions are for Ms. Riendeau and Ms. Barrette.

I don't know what my colleagues think, but to my mind there has been a recurring theme since the beginning of the year: Women who call my office to talk to me about domestic violence situations don't talk about a positive experience in the justice system. Rather, they tell me that the system has backfired on them, that they are the ones who are charged and that their abuser is in a much more favourable situation.

I want to pick up on a question raised at the end of Mrs. Vien's remarks. It was for you, Ms. Riendeau, but Ms. Barrette has just touched on it. So you can both answer. You were cut off when you were going to explain the cross-complaint strategy. I just want you to explain this to us clearly because I think it's central to a lot of what witnesses are saying right now about Bill C‑225.

Please go ahead, Ms. Riendeau.

[Louise Riendeau]

Domestic violence, or coercive control, which we're talking about now, is a strategy that takes all kinds of forms and that an abuser uses to establish and maintain control over their partner. Using the justice system is one of the strategies, whether it's filing a criminal complaint against a partner or reporting her to youth protection services for the way she is raising the children.

Yes, we have to consider that and the fact that police officers don't always identify the primary aggressor, as my colleague said. In addition, advocates who should help women navigate the legal system are not always well equipped to do everything possible to defend those who have been victims of domestic violence.

That's why we have to make sure that the legislation requires the system to consider those elements before making a decision. Of course, we want controlling spouses to be punished more. They are the ones targeted by Bill C‑225, but we have to be careful not to create collateral victims.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'm going to continue with you quickly, Ms. Barrette, because you were talking about the significant impact of training. What boggles my mind right now is that there still seems to be far too much prejudice against victims. I also sense there are gaps in training, knowledge and tools, and that a lot of bias persists. Someone even talked to me about the thorny issue of the perfect victim. We will have to come back to the importance of including tools in the Criminal Code, as well as providing adequate training for people in the system.

[Karine Barrette]

In Quebec, as part of a specific project on improving judicial practice, the Regroupement will have trained more than 13,000 justice system professionals. We're really talking about the entire system here, meaning patrol officers, investigators, prosecutors, probation officers, correctional services employees and various types of immigration or family law lawyers.

There are indeed preconceived notions about the perfect victim. We hear them. That said, I think the goal right now is really to highlight the more invisible strategies. Coercive control is still not well understood. We're seeing progress in Quebec. There seems to be a lot of police mobilization. More than 5,500 police officers have been made aware of this issue.

In addition, I would say that, in terms of learning, there is a lot of willingness and openness to improving. The purpose of learning is really to enable people to recognize and detect strategies that are sometimes more insidious and not reported as often by victims. How do we demonstrate the existence of those strategies? How can they be highlighted? How can they be used to justify detention? That is precisely what clause 8 of Bill C‑225 seeks to do.

Is bias being completely removed? No. Unfortunately, we still hear about it. Having worked with police organizations for a number of years, I can tell you however that this original, more limited view of violence, which was physical only or was based on isolated incidents, was very harmful. We really need to teach stakeholders to recognize the impact of ongoing coercive control. A prosecutor once said that domestic violence is not a photo, it's a movie. We are trying to educate and raise awareness among professionals in the justice system so they recognize that movie. That will enable them, in the case of bills such as Bill C‑225, to make a distinction between reactive violence, for example, and a pattern of coercive control.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Domestic violence isn't a photo, but a movie. That really sums up the situation very well. I'll remember that.

Ms. Riendeau, in your opening remarks, you also mentioned risk assessment. Why is it necessary to detain an accused for assessment?

[Louise Riendeau]

In our system in Quebec, the prosecutor can request a risk assessment from the time of the bail hearing. If the spouse is released by police and is summoned to appear, that assessment will never happen. So we're saying that this will give us another chance, especially in the case of repeat offenders or spouses who were on conditional release and had been released on parole in connection with domestic violence. These people show us that they are not ready to respect the limits imposed on them by either the victim or the justice system. Those people are intrinsically more dangerous. That's why it's important to conduct an evaluation. That is also when we can make a distinction between someone who used violence in a specific situation and someone for whom it is a way of operating with their partner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Now we go to the second round.

We have Frank Caputo for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

I'm a lawyer and my wife is also a lawyer.

My wife runs four legal clinics, so I hope that is helpful to the witnesses. She deals largely with women and with people who don't qualify for legal aid.

I am also the author of this bill and a former Crown prosecutor. I taught sentencing class and advanced criminal law. These are areas in which I would like to think that I have a bit of experience.

I want to couch my comments by saying that I'm not attempting to be adversarial, but I would like to make this bill better. I want to point out one thing that I don't think I would like to engage in dialogue on. The notion of further criminalizing people is not the intent of the bill. I understand that nobody is saying that. The issue is that it would be a by-product of the bill.

This bill, believe it or not, is not about criminalizing. It is taking existing conduct that would otherwise be criminal and is addressing it either by renaming the offence or by altering the sentencing. In having an offence of assault of an intimate partner, we are not saying that we want more victims to become the accused. The reality is that, if somebody is guilty of assault of an intimate partner, they are also guilty of the offence of assault under the Criminal Code. I would hate to see a victim convicted of assault in those circumstances.

Similarly, if somebody is guilty of murder—and we say that it would be first-degree murder—that victim, today, would be guilty of at least second-degree murder. There is nothing in this bill that changes whether somebody is guilty of murder. It's an issue of sentencing and an issue of whether it would be first-degree or second-degree murder.

I don't want to see a victim be found guilty of second-degree murder. I'm talking about, for instance, the Lavallee decision, which I'm sure you're all familiar with, and the cases that have come after it. That's the last thing I would want. I don't think any victim should be guilty of murder. When I drafted this bill, I did so quite carefully in that regard.

I think we have to deal with the systemic issue. If the issue is one of criminalization of people who shouldn't be criminalized, then we need to deal with that, clearly. You are telling us that is an issue. Similarly, we don't want to see other people who are not guilty of these sorts of offences be found guilty. This is a huge issue.

I came from a jurisdiction where charge approval was not in the hands of police; it was in the prosecutorial hands, which is something I advocate for because I'm against mandatory charging for the issues you have laid out.

I know I just gave a very long preamble, but this is really on my heart. I don't want to see any more victims. This bill doesn't try to make any more victims. As I understand it, the issue on which you're dialoguing, which I welcome, is one of making sure that there aren't any more victims. I'm all for that. I just want to address the problem of intimate partner violence.

I invite your comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Who would like to begin?

[Karine Barrette]

I'll begin and you can carry on.

[Technical difficulty—Editor ] testimony from February 12, that is, from the previous meeting, and I clearly sense the intent behind the bill. We are completely aligned with that intent.

We're simply talking about the adverse effects we're seeing on the ground. I'm referring to victims who ultimately won't be charged, but who are nevertheless arrested. On the ground, there is sometimes confusion between the obligation to report someone and the obligation to arrest them, so that some victims are afraid to call for help again, either from the police or the justice system in general. Knowing that it's first-degree murder, however, and that the sentence can be longer, there is added stress.

Are we throwing out the baby with the bathwater, to pick up on what Mrs. Vien said? That's not necessarily the case. We're really talking about putting guardrails in place, and there are various possibilities. We talked about having at least one amendment stating that there must be a pattern of coercive control, coercive and controlling conduct, for it to be first-degree murder. That would ensure that a victim is not charged as a result of reactive or defensive violence. We would look at the intent behind coercive control, because that's one of the determining factors in the pattern of behaviour. So that would be one of the guardrails.

There are other guardrails. Our group had the opportunity to go to Scotland, England and Australia, where control—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Caputo's time is up.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It's always informative and enlightening.

Ms. Barrette, we ran into each other last summer when you were about to catch a flight. I see you nodding. It might be interesting to hear what is being done internationally to compare ourselves and perhaps adjust course as regards Bill C‑225.

Have you observed any best practices or adjustments that could strengthen the bill in its current form? You are welcome to share your experiences.