Debates of April 13th, 2026

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this be carried.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

On division?

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

No, just carried through a voice vote, please.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion agreed to)

I therefore declare the motion carried on division. When shall the bill be read a third time? Now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I must say, whenever we hear “when shall the bill be read the next time”, I think that this is the first time I have ever heard, in the House, that it be said, “Now.”

I hear the member from Winnipeg chuckling. I think that he is probably a bit disappointed that he did not get that extra word in Hansard. If it was recorded, perhaps it could be attributed to him by the verification desk. We all know that he likes to speak in the House, just as I do. In fact, we should all appreciate speaking in this place. I was reflecting not long ago about this, about how much of an honour it is to be here.

Let us face it. Whenever we have a job, we will have people who take different degrees of interest in their job. For me, I have the ability to stand here on the green carpet of the House of Commons, as somebody who grew up as the child of immigrants in a very middle-class home. My dad was a sawmill worker. My mom was a stay-at-home mom until I was about 10, the last child, when she went back to school to become a legal assistant. Ultimately, I became a lawyer. We see this going full circle.

The ability to stand here in the House of Commons is not something we should ever underestimate, regardless of which side of the aisle we are on. If I could amplify that point even more, it is an even greater honour when we have what we call private members' bills or Private Members' Business.

I experienced this first-hand last time, through Bill C-291, which was an amendment to the Criminal Code in the last Parliament, to change the name of child pornography to child sexual abuse exploitation material. I wrote that bill. It was then shepherded by the member for what is now Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

I have my Criminal Code here. I promise that I am not using it as a prop, but one of the things I can say about my 2026 Criminal Code is that this language has now been adopted to reflect the fact that we are no longer using that antiquated language. It is against that backdrop that I rise here today.

I thank everybody here for allowing this matter to proceed past the report stage without the necessity for a standing vote, so that we could get to third reading now. I am optimistic and hopeful that debate could perhaps collapse so that we could be voting on the bill as soon as Wednesday or even today. Hope springs eternal, they might say.

Colloquially, this is called “Bailey's Law”, Bill C-225. This is the first private member's bill that has been brought forward in the Parliament for debate. It is my honour to stand here before us.

Bailey McCourt was in her mid-30s. Her abuser was convicted of assaulting her, of choking her and, I believe, of threatening her. Three hours after he was convicted, free on bail, he killed her. That matter remains before the court, so he is obviously accused at this time. I do not believe that there is any dispute as to who the assailant was. The question of his guilt in a court of law will have to be for another day.

For context, I had actually written the bill about two or three years ago. As most people know, I was a lawyer before I came to this place. I guess I will be a lawyer after I leave this place. One of the things that really bothered me was that we treat assault the same way regardless of context, mostly. For instance, assault in the Criminal Code is under section 266. Whether one beats one's intimate partner or beats somebody up at the bar, it is the same charge. There is one exception that we used to look at a lot, which was assault of a peace officer. Assaulting a peace officer was different. The law certainly recognizes that, sometimes, things should be different.

I thought it should be different for assaulting an intimate partner. Intimate partners are within a relationship of trust and often of financial dependence. It is not uncommon for one intimate partner to make vastly more money. At times of separation or at times of potential separation, that can really be exploitative. There is spiritual dependence oftentimes, and just general codependence. That was something that really bothered me, and that was why I had written a version of the bill in 2023 or 2024.

The bill never got tabled. After Bailey was killed in early July 2025, the NDP Premier of British Columbia called for the killing of an intimate partner to be first-degree murder. I thought, as a Conservative, that if the NDP premier was asking for this, perhaps we could find a common ground. That is why I put the bill forward.

I want to recognize a number of people who have been impacted by Bailey's tragic killing. Let us not forget her children. Carrie Wiebe was present in the car when Bailey was killed. I sent her a message today giving her an update. We cannot forget Bailey's family, her mother Karen, her father Shane, her stepmom Trish, her sister Paige and her aunt Debbie.

Sometimes we see things in the news and become detached from them. One thing I enjoy about this job that is challenging, and I think every member here feels this way, is that when we deal with somebody, whether with respect to an immigration matter, a taxation matter or, in this case, a matter of crime, they are touched by it personally. I can say that when we look somebody in the eye, it touches us personally. If we look at people like Flo and Paul, who appeared at committee, and we hear them speak about their daughter and her tragic killing at the hands of an intimate partner, it really crystallizes within me the necessity for us to challenge the status quo sometimes.

The law evolves, it should evolve and sometimes it has to evolve more drastically. In fact, the last time I think the law evolved on the issue of intimate partner violence was likely in the early 1980s when an exception to the law of sexual assault with respect to one's spouse was taken out, and rightfully so. A person can sexually assault their spouse. It happens far too often. Therefore, I am very proud to be standing before Parliament today with I believe the support of all parties. We received all-party support at second reading. I hope we will have all-party support at third reading to make the most substantial change to the law of intimate partner violence thus far in Canadian history.

It is important that we work together. One of the things I often tell people who see us oftentimes as being pugilistic or combative is that there is a time and a place to be oppositional. I am a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, a role I take very seriously. Without a meaningful opposition, I believe that democracy is imperilled. There is a time to protest. There is a time to debate. There is a time to oppose. There is a time to question. Questioning is fine. In fact, questioning is vital to a robust democracy. I hope if I am ever on the government benches that we have a meaningful opposition. This is one reason why I often take such issue with time allocation, closure and things like that when we have barely discussed a bill. I am very proud to stand before Parliament on this issue.

I was talking about the opposition and why it is important. One thing people may or may not realize is this. If they were to look at the bill before it goes to committee, at second reading and after it has gone to committee, they would see a substantially different bill, and that is okay. In fact, when we work together and make bills better, it is a good thing. I can say, as the sponsor of this bill, that I believe we have made it better. I believe that, in working with the minister's office and my staff, we have made the bill better.

This may be the last time I get to speak on this bill, so I will thank my staff, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo and Rofiat Agboola, for helping out and working with the minister's staff. I would like to thank the minister's staff, who have been more than accommodating in meeting with us in order to address this bill.

What would the bill do? It would make major changes with respect to homicide of an intimate partner. If a homicide of an intimate partner occurs, that homicide would now be first-degree murder if there is a pattern of coercion or control, or if the homicide occurs during coercion or control. Manslaughter of an intimate partner would now have to be considered with respect to whether a life sentence should be imposed.

A life sentence in Canada is imposed mandatorily for murder generally, whether first-degree or second-degree murder The question then becomes one of parole ineligibility, and we call that a minimum sentence for life. There is actually a maximum sentence for life. A lot of people do not know this, but a person can go to jail for life for breaking into someone's home. That is the maximum sentence a court can impose. The court does not have to impose that, but it can. A court can also impose a maximum sentence of life for manslaughter.

I was a parole officer in my early twenties, and I worked in the justice system for a long time. The last time I saw a life sentence imposed for manslaughter was in 1972. That is a long time ago, yet intimate partner violence continues to be a scourge on our society. Maybe it is high time we address sentencing.

One of the things I have taken issue with is the government's sentencing of sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children. The way we as society and as Parliament reflect our difficulty or our issue with a crime should be based in part on sentencing: the more repugnant the crime, the stricter the sentence. In some cases we call that denunciation. That is what is talked about in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Sometimes we talk about deterrence, making a sentence so bad that people do not want to do the crime or will think twice before they do it.

However, in a lot of respects, we just have to say it like it is. It is happening far too often that intimate partners are dying. This is flying under the radar far too often, unreported or under-reported, so we need to make changes. Often in intimate partner violence what we call the cycle of violence continues on and on. In Bailey's case, there was a cycle of violence. As I recall, there were breaches involved. She had been previously victimized by the offender. It is time to stop the cycle of violence. We need a paradigm shift in this country on the issue, and I hope that Bill C-225 would do that.

My colleague will be speaking on behalf of the party seconder, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, whom I want to thank for giving up her spot in the order of precedence so we could speak to the bill sooner. Having a team effort like this and having members like the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot selflessly in order to have Bailey's law advance sooner on third reading, is how we get things done. I am incredibly indebted to the member. I am indebted to every member who has spoken to the bill from our benches, who has supported it and who has met with the family.

Let us get the bill passed right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member has brought forward substantive legislation, and because of the processing of legislation for private members' hour, we are actually at a point where, whether it is after this hour or after one more hour of debate, we will actually have a vote on this substantial piece of legislation.

First, I would recognize the member bringing forward the legislation and bringing it to committee. It was really important that parties worked together so everyone could feel comfortable in ultimately getting the legislation to where it is today. I am wondering if the member could provide his feelings with respect to the committee process and the contributions that were made at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution. Obviously, sometimes we do have our disagreements in the House, and that is actually healthy.

Therefore, in direct response to the member's question, I will say that the committee process was actually very meaningful. For people who might not know, committee is where we study a bill. When we got to committee, we as Conservatives had agreed to a number of amendments. There were a number of stakeholders who had spoken loudly and clearly on the issue. I know that my Bloc colleagues had thoughts and that my Liberal colleagues and my NDP colleagues had thoughts.

However, the fact that we were able to synthesize all those thoughts so quickly into amendments was very meaningful. I believe it was two and a half or three meetings that the committee met for such a lengthy piece of legislation. Normally, private members' bills are a lot shorter. The committee process went as it should: smoothly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill. I work with him on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

We realized that amendments needed to be made when we examined this bill in committee after second reading.

I would like my colleague to talk more specifically about the importance of improving recognition of coercive control, which was a topic of discussion in our committee meetings. We have talked about this for far too long, but nothing seems to have come of it. What difference would that make for victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very important question.

The House voted, I believe unanimously, in the last Parliament on a bill from former NDP member Laurel Collins with respect to coercive control, but I believe it died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Coercive control is part of the cycle of violence that I just referred to. It is something that goes on and on. It is a part of that violence. Intimate partner violence generally does not just come out of nowhere. There are precursors. There are antecedents that happen, and coercive control is central to that. It is part of the dependence, often financial dependence, that we see, as well as psychological manipulation. Therefore, it is very important that the House recognize the role of coercive control in criminality.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker I spoke with Bailey's grandmother, who lives in my riding, who heartbrokenly told me that she was with Bailey the day she was born, for her first breath, and was with her when she took her last breath.

I just wonder if the member could tell us how we as legislators can justify not strengthening protections for victims through measures like Bailey's law to ensure that dangerous offenders are not given opportunities to reoffend and to murder an intimate partner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to Bailey's grandmother. I actually was not aware of her being present for Bailey's first and her final breaths. That is very difficult to hear.

In answer to the member's question, the first thing that we have to address is that there is a problem. If we are unprepared in the House to say that intimate partner violence is a problem, and if we are unprepared to say we have to deal with this, then we have an even bigger problem. This is the first step in addressing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today and address a very important, substantive piece of legislation. I look at it with a holistic approach wherein we have witnessed over the last 10 months, since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we wanted to make the whole crime file a part of that first-year agenda going forward. That is one of the reasons we saw substantial pieces of legislation come before the House dealing with the issue of crime. Whether it is things that take place in homes and in our communities or things that garner a great deal of national attention, we want people to feel safe and secure in their communities, and we recognize that the federal government has a very important role to ensure that this is taking place.

That is why, when we take a look at the bill that we have before us today, Bill C-225, which the member appropriately named “Bailey's law”, Bailey McCourt hits the heartstrings of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How can one not formulate an opinion when they hear some of the details of that particular situation that occurred? It was very tragic and very horrific in its nature, in the consequences and impact on the family unit, the friends, the community and so many others. As such, maybe a good starting point would be to extend our prayers and best wishes to the family and those who are so familiar and have had to endure what has taken place since the murder of Bailey McCourt. I say that with all sincerity, believing that every member of the Liberal caucus, and every member of the House of Commons, recognizes the tragedy of an individual who had suffered and ultimately was assaulted. The perpetrator was arrested, but then released on bail, and ultimately the consequence was a death.

Fast-forward to the legislation that is before us today. This is why I indicated that I do believe it is appropriate to identify this piece of legislation with an individual whom people can easily relate to.

I posed a question in regard to the committee stage, to the introducer of the legislation, and I did that because I think it is important for us to recognize that private members' bills, and ours, can make a very positive difference in our communities. I use this legislation as an example, where something was brought to the floor of the House and ultimately went to a standing committee, and because we had a consensus that was building among different political entities, we were able to improve the legislation to the degree that it is getting support. Areas of concern were addressed, amendments were brought forward and, ultimately, we now have before us legislation that is not going to have an issue with being able to pass. The committee structure can work, and this is a good example of that.

Further to that, because we have a system that allows private members' business to ultimately be processed in a timely fashion, we know that legislation will pass and that time allocation, closure or unanimous consent, none of those things are necessary, because we have a process that enables bills to pass, and justifiably so.

We talked about coercive control and about how the Prime Minister and the government have talked about a new offence that would actually prohibit the pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, which is one of the reasons we brought forward Bill C-16. There is a lot of substance within Bill C-16 that would be good for our communities, just as there is in Bill C-225, which deals with the very important and sensitive issue of domestic violence.

If members were here for the second reading of the bill, as I was, we heard about domestic violence and coercive control, which is a dominant factor. We have heard this constantly over the years. The issue of stalking constantly comes up. We can think of the emotional and psychological abuse that is involved when domestic violence is taking place. However, often things like economic abuse are overlooked, which is a very real and tangible factor.

We often cite physical abuse, because we can see when a spouse has been physically abused, often to the degree that they have to seek medical attention, and things such as sexual abuse. However, more and more, one of the things that continues to grow, which we need to deal with as a legislature, is the issue of cyber-violence and the impact that cyber-violence has on our communities, especially with the issue of sexual intimidation and intimidation in many other forms, such as blackmail and extortion. The impact on the physical and mental well-being of victims is very severe.

The legislation before us today would elevate the consequence of domestic abuse, and I see that as a positive thing. During second reading of the bill, I talked more about the substance of the legislation, suggesting we would be open not only to what the member was trying to address but also to bringing other initiatives into the issue of domestic abuse and ensuring that there is an appropriate consequence to actions that are taken.

On the issue of femicide, I made reference to Bill C-16. “Femicide” is a term that is not well known, but I believe it will become better known in the years ahead, because we recognize it is something, through Bill C-16, that should be elevated to first-degree murder when put into the context of sexual violence and human trafficking. These are the types of initiatives that, if we take the same approach at committee or at debate on substantive legislation that goes beyond Bill C-225, would lead to women, in particular, as well as children and members of society, to being better protected.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should take a more holistic approach when looking at the legislation we have before us. Let us get the same sort of co-operation here that we witnessed in committee. Let us add strength to our legislation. The Prime Minister has provided us a substantial suite. Let us see if we can act together and make our communities a safer place to call home.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we are debating Bill C-225, which amends the Criminal Code. This bill is also known as “Bailey's Law”, sadly in memory of a young woman who was strangled to death. It was a horrific crime, and femicide still occurs far too often. Rising to speak to these femicides is always upsetting. I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill, which we had the opportunity to study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We were moved by the testimony we heard and want to express our sympathy to the family. This was a horrible murder. The committee meetings got very emotional. We must do something about this.

There is one thing, however, that I find somewhat regrettable. We discussed femicide and the problem of coercive control in the last Parliament. The member for Victoria, Ms. Collins, introduced a bill to criminalize coercive control. The bill passed in the House and even made it to the Senate. No bill on coercive control had ever made it that far before. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in 2025. That delayed the criminalization of coercive control, even though the National Assembly of Quebec has been calling for this for a long time, particularly since the publication of the “Rebuilding Trust” report. The National Assembly wanted to take action in Quebec to prevent any further femicides, but since the Criminal Code is federal legislation, the National Assembly said that it is the federal government that must act.

By talking about this issue again today, we can drive home a message that should have been sent a long time ago. In fact, it was not until I proposed a study on coercive control at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and parliamentarians from all political parties showed up outside the House for a press conference last fall to tell the government that it needed to take action on the issue of coercive control that things got moving. Meanwhile, at least the study of Bill C‑225 was coming along, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women got a chance to debate it.

There is a clear consensus on the seriousness of domestic violence, and all parties are willing to take action. As the work in committee showed, all parties were able to work together and propose amendments to move the bill forward and improve it. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill because it takes a rigorous and consistent approach, while respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Thanks to the amendments proposed in committee, we can say today that this bill must move forward.

However, the problem is not just that there is a shortage of laws, but that these laws are not being adequately enforced. The federal government keeps coming up with legislative changes without fixing the cracks in the system. At this point in my speech, I would like to share some statistics. Only 36% of family violence cases and only 5% of sexual assault cases get reported, which clearly points to a loss of trust in our institutions; 95% of domestic violence cases involve coercive control; and about 117,000 victims report domestic violence every year in Canada, 80% of them women. Furthermore, one in three women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

These figures are truly disturbing. In Canada, one woman is killed every six days. Not surprisingly, the most vulnerable groups are indigenous women, racialized women and women living in poverty. I could also include women in rural areas, where resources are more limited. The most vulnerable pay the highest price for the cracks in the system. We really have to act. It is also important to understand that coercive control is a form of violence that involves repeated acts of control and intimidation. Since it is a pattern of behaviour, gathering evidence is obviously not easy. The legal system is also ill equipped to deal with this problem. Current criminal law struggles to fully acknowledge the reality of coercive control, and that is what absolutely must change.

Our contribution to Bill C-225 includes tougher sentences, specific mention of intimate partners and the addition of the coercive conduct criterion. That was one of the proposed amendments. Then there is the increased focus on repeat offences, which is crucial. Those changes meant the bill was improved in committee. We worked very hard, and it was the result of cross-party collaboration. I want to highlight that out of respect for the victims, their families and their loved ones, while also keeping survivors in mind.

The Bloc Québécois brought forward what I would describe as constructive criticism. We wanted to ensure consistency with criminal law. For example, there was the issue of classifying the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. We also wanted to avoid legislative redundancy, because several offences already exist, such as harassment, threats and assault.

Adding sections to the Criminal Code does not always guarantee better justice. That is why we need to address something else at the same time: There is not enough enforcement. Not as many charges are being laid, with increased reliance on section 810, which was studied at committee. Does that really protect victims? This needs to be examined further in order to improve things. The problem is not so much the lack of tools as it is the way they are being used within the current justice system. Tools already exist in the Criminal Code.

Lastly, it is also important to consider the relationship between Quebec and the federal government. Quebec has a solid system of community-based networks. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all the groups and employees within these community networks who work every day to help women who are victims of domestic violence and coercive control. They perform small miracles. They have recognized expertise in addressing domestic violence, but the reality is that resources are insufficient and these organizations are under pressure. It is important that they receive increased resources. The federal government needs to provide financial support, not just pass legislation. However, this must be done while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions. These organizations know the reality on the ground in Quebec.

There are still too many obstacles for victims, who are afraid that they will not be believed. Financial dependence also keeps victims trapped in a cycle of violence because they are afraid that they will not be able to afford to escape and that they will lose custody of their children. We need to take action. The system is seen as ill equipped to deal with such situations and is even often exploited by abusers. The system must instead work to help victims break free of the cycle of domestic violence. It must not be yet another obstacle for them to deal with.

What is more, we are seeing that new technology is having an increased impact on violence. It provides new ways to control victims, including location tracking, digital surveillance and online harassment. The law really needs to evolve to keep pace with these new forms of violence. I would also point out that we need to address cyber-violence because that also disproportionately affects women.

In conclusion, we will really need to be very strategic. Of course, we support the bill because we recognize that improvements have been made. However, it is also important to continue ensuring that the law is consistent. Above all, we need to go further. Let me be clear: We must take effective, consistent and victim-centred action. There is only one way to do that. We must continue to listen to victims, survivors and their loved ones. As I said earlier, we must listen to the organizations that work with victims every day.

I, along with the members of the Bloc Québécois, pledge to keep listening to them. This bill is not an end in itself. It is an important step, but we must also ensure that a comprehensive system is put in place to support it. We will also need more resources and a truly systemic review of how we can address violence against women and femicide.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a strange and troubling thing in a country as prosperous and progressive as ours that a woman at risk can do everything she has been told to do, to seek help, speak truth and place her trust in the law, and still find herself dead at the hands of her own partner wielding a bloody weapon, in what can only be considered a completely avoidable murder.

Bailey McCourt is one such story. She was not a statistic. She was a young mother with two young children, right in my community of Cloverdale. To those who loved her, she was not a headline. She was the centre of a home, a woman trying to build a safe life for her family. Like so many others, she found herself in a relationship that became dangerous over time. There were threats. There was violence. At one point, there was strangulation, which is one of the clearest indicators that the risk had escalated to a level that should never be ignored.

On the morning of July 4, Bailey's former partner stood before a court and was convicted of assaulting her. The system had, in that moment, all the pieces in front of it. It had the history, it had the violence, and it had the pattern that had been building over time, yet despite all of that, he was released. There was no requirement to step back and ask whether this was something more than a single offence. There was no mechanism that treated violence against an intimate partner as fundamentally different from any other assault. There was no tool that required the court to fully assess whether Bailey was still in danger even after a conviction had just been entered. This is because under the law as it stands, we do not distinguish in any meaningful way between a violent act against a stranger and a violent act against someone in an intimate relationship, a relationship built on trust, proximity and, in many cases, vulnerability. When we fail to make that distinction, we fail to recognize the very real and documented risk that comes with intimate partner violence, particularly when it escalates.

Just hours later, Bailey was in a parking lot going about what should have been an ordinary part of her day. It was there, in that ordinary place, in broad daylight, that her attacker found her and murdered her. She knew this could happen. She had begged to be protected, but the law, as it is written, ensured that the warning signs were ignored, and the inevitable happened.

When we look back at that day, the question is not simply how this happened, but why there was no legal mechanism strong enough to interrupt it. Why, after a conviction, was there no ability for the court to say that it needed to take a closer look at this individual, needed a proper risk assessment and needed to determine whether releasing this person put a woman's life at risk?

Bailey's case is not just a tragedy. It is a clear example of a gap in our law, a gap between what we know about intimate partner violence and how our system is currently structured to respond to it.

When we step back from Bailey's story, difficult as it is, we are forced to ask ourselves a larger question. Was this truly an isolated failure, or is it part of something that we have been seeing for far too long and are just not willing to make the necessary changes to to protect women at risk?

Dr. Wendy Aujla, assistant professor of criminal justice at Athabasca University, has spent years listening to women, many of them particularly vulnerable as new immigrants, who have walked this very path, not in theory but in lived experiences, in stories that, when placed side by side, begin to look far less like exceptions and far more like a pattern we can no longer ignore. What she hears time and again are stories not of women who failed to act but of women who did exactly what Bailey did. They reported, they sought help, and they tried to leave, but just like with Bailey, risk was not considered in the context of what had already happened and what was increasingly likely to happen next.

For many women in the South Asian community, the path to even reaching that point is far more complex than the system is designed to recognize. Their particular cases are often complicated by family honour, language barriers and coercive control inside the home. A system like ours that is seemingly built to protect the perpetrator of intimate violence is very dangerous, especially for women of vulnerable minorities.

When we consider what happened to Bailey, we cannot look at it in isolation. It fits into a pattern that has already been identified and already been studied. The knowledge is there. Our laws are ignoring that knowledge. While research like Dr. Aujla's helps us understand the pattern, it is often outside the government and in community spaces where we see just how real and immediate this issue is for women living through it.

Last year, I attended a fundraiser on behalf of The Kaur Movement, founded by Gurpreet Kaur and supported by leaders like Manjot Kaur. The Kaur Movement is a survivor-led network that supports women facing abuse by connecting them to real-time help, such as shelters, legal aid and counselling, while also working to break the culture of silence around domestic violence, especially in the South Asian community.

I went to the fundraiser expecting to hear about advocacy, awareness and the kinds of work many organizations are doing in this space to support women. What I heard that evening has stayed with me because it was not abstract or theoretical. It was story after story of women who have lived through violence, who have tried to seek help and who, in many cases, have found themselves navigating systems that were slow or difficult to access at the very moment they needed them the most. What struck me was not just the severity of what women endure but the common thread running through their experiences, which was the sense that they were often left to carry the burden of their safety on their own shoulders while feeling helpless and afraid because their lives were not as valued as those of the men who perpetrated the violence.

The Kaur Movement has built something remarkable in response to this reality. It has created a network that responds in real time, connecting women to shelters, legal help and counselling, often at the very instant that they are reaching out. What The Kaur Movement is seeing day after day reinforces what we know: These are not isolated stories but part of a pattern that continues to unfold in communities across the country. Tragedies are playing out time and again due to a lack of laws that protect these vulnerable women in their moment of need.

We can place these stories side by side: Bailey's life and loss; the careful work of women like Dr. Aujla who study these patterns; and community voices like The Kaur Movement, rising from what they see in reality every day. When we do, it becomes impossible to pretend that we do not understand what is happening.

This bill asks us to finally align our legal response with what we already know to be true. It asks us to recognize in law that violence within an intimate relationship is not the same as violence between strangers, carrying with it a level of risk and proximity that makes it more dangerous, not less. This bill would begin to correct that by naming the reality for what it is. It would create a distinct offence that acknowledges the nature of intimate partner violence.

The bill would go further still. It would recognize that when the ultimate act of violence is committed within a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, when a life is taken by someone who has used that pattern of control and fear as a weapon, it must be treated with the full weight of the law. To name that act as first-degree murder would be not merely a question of punishment but a statement of clarity and a refusal to look away from what intimate partner homicide truly represents. The law has long recognized that killing in the context of other serious circumstances warrants elevation to first-degree murder. This bill would extend that same principle to the killing of an intimate partner where coercive or controlling conduct is present. That context is not incidental to the crime; it is the crime.

This bill would ensure that when a person has already been convicted of an intimate partner offence within the past five years, or is already at large on a release order related to a prior intimate partner offence, a peace officer could not simply release them at the scene. The decision would have to go before a judge. It would be a safeguard built for moments like Bailey's, where the history is already there, the pattern is already documented and the ordinary process of release is simply not enough to meet the gravity of what is in front of the court.

Bailey McCourt should still be here. That is the simplest, most honest thing that can be said. Her children should still have their mother. Her family should not be carrying this weight, nor should they be the ones who must now stand before us and ask that we do what should have been done already. We cannot give Bailey back to her children, but we can decide here and now that her story will not end in silence and that from it will come a measure of protection for those who are still, even today, waiting for the system to recognize the danger they are living with.

Let us pass this bill. Let us act with the seriousness this moment demands and ensure that when the warning signs are there, as they so often are, we do not look back once again and say that we knew and did not act.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at third reading to support Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First, I would like to congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their co-operation during the committee's consideration of the bill and for their efforts to significantly strengthen it through a series of amendments. We were able to work together in committee and achieve this. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for their valuable testimony and insights, which led to the discussion we are having today.

Before proceeding further, I would also like to note that this bill has been named “Bailey's Law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, British Columbia, who was tragically murdered by her former partner last July. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present during the committee hearings, and I had the opportunity to meet them right here in the House through our colleague, the bill's sponsor. I thank him for introducing them to us. We had a good discussion with them. I would like to point out that their work has not only inspired the House but also contributed to the amendments made to the bill in preparation for the next steps.

It is for these family members and countless other survivors and family members of those who have experienced intimate partner violence that we continue our efforts to advance this vital work.

I would like to focus on three points today, three key amendments made to the bill at committee that deal with first-degree murder, manslaughter and the proposed new offence of intimate partner violence.

First, Bill C-225 was amended to specify that the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as first-degree murder if the perpetrator commits the murder while engaging in, or after having engaged in, coercive and controlling behaviour. This means that, under these circumstances, the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as the most serious form of homicide, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. Whenever someone murders their intimate partner, it will be treated the same way whether it was premeditated or not.

This is a very important measure aimed at condemning intimate partner homicides, which disproportionately target women. First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years.

At first reading, Bill C‑225 proposed to automatically designate all intimate partner murders as first-degree murders. When the bill was being studied in committee, many witnesses indicated that, even though they supported the intent behind the proposal, they were concerned that it might inadvertently penalize victims of intimate partner violence who end up killing their intimate partner in response to that violence. They wanted to make sure that the bill would not apply to persons acting in self-defence.

In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to include a safeguard: Intimate partner murders would be treated as first-degree murders only if the evidence showed that the murder was committed “in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”.

A pattern of controlling or coercive conduct is defined in the coercion or control offence proposed in Bill C‑16. This offence was carefully designed so that it would protect victims and not be used to their detriment. It includes indicators of persistent violence that help determine who the true aggressor is in any given situation, including fatal cases of intimate partner violence, since we must consider the alleged offence in its broader context, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents of violence.

This will make it possible to distinguish between acts of abusive violence and those committed in self-defence. In short, evidence will be required to prove that the person who killed their intimate partner was also experiencing a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. This could help to ensure that victims who kill their violent partner would not be considered to have committed first-degree murder because these victims did not necessarily have control over their partners. The goal is to protect the victims in such situations.

This amendment is therefore very important. It also seeks to protect women and is a direct response to the concerns raised by several witnesses in committee. It also complements the provisions of Bill C-16 related to femicide.

Second, Bill C-225 was amended to require the sentencing court to consider imposing a life sentence in cases involving the manslaughter of an intimate partner where the offender committed the offence in a context of coercive control. This amendment complements the one relating to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, which I just talked about, by ensuring that, even when the homicide of an intimate partner does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats it with the utmost seriousness.

Like the amendment related to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, this amendments seeks to protect victims who kill their violent partner in response to the violence they are experiencing. This provision also complements one of the aggravating factors related to manslaughter in cases of femicide already set out in Bill C-16.

The amended bill also includes a number of consequential amendments related to this amendment regarding the offence of manslaughter in the context of intimate partner violence. For example, if a court were to impose a life sentence in such a case, it would also be required to impose a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 25 years.

This amendment ensures that manslaughter committed by an intimate partner is treated in a manner that is comparable to second-degree murder for the purpose of the parole ineligibility provisions when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment. In doing so, it recognizes that those who take the life of an intimate partner in a context of coercive control bear greater responsibility.

Lastly, Bill C‑225 was also amended to create a new offence specific to intimate partner violence that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. deputy government House leader.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, for the Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank everyone for being here to take part in this important debate.

First of all, I believe it is essential to understand the context of this debate and the importance of this bill.

It is no secret that public safety and crime in Canada are major political concerns for the government, and of course that reflects the reality that they are major political concerns for Canadians who go about their lives day to day concerned about the reality in their communities. Over the course of the past year now, we have been advancing a framework to address public safety in this country that rests on three key pillars. The first is to adopt stronger laws, including laws that would reform bail and sentencing in this country, laws that would combat hate, and laws that would more forcefully defend Canadians against gender-based violence and, in particular, the exploitation of Canadian children, particularly in an online environment.

The second pillar involves supporting the front line. This includes 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders, but also support for community organizations that help keep communities safe or support victims. It also includes providing law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. The third pillar, which I would suggest is among the most important, is to make upstream investments to help build safer communities and healthier people in the long term, including investments in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, and programs that particularly target at-risk youth, among other things.

Today's bill arises in the context of the second pillar that I mentioned. That pillar, again, is to support the front line. It is easy for us, when we think about support for the front line, to think that it simply means more officers, which it must, as I pointed out, with significant investments in the federal aspect of both the RCMP and the CBSA, but importantly, it requires us to give law enforcement the tools they need.

Our strategy rests on three pillars. First, we are introducing legislation to strengthen criminal law across the country. Second, we are providing support to police officers and others who protect our communities. Third, we are making investments to build safe communities.

I want to focus specifically on this second pillar of giving the tools to law enforcement to help keep our communities safe. It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone sitting in this chamber or those who live in our communities across Canada that the world we live in has changed over time and continues to change. In particular, the rapid pace of technological change demands that governments take actions to ensure that our laws reflect the reality in which we live today, not simply positioning us to address threats that existed during our childhood.

When we think about the way the world has modernized, we quickly come to understand that so, too, have criminal organizations. The use of technology is so prevalent that it has become a primary way in which crimes are committed across borders, often in a digital environment. All of us are walking around with powerful phones in our pockets that allow us to engage with people in a moment around the world. We have access to networks of people we can keep in touch with, primarily for ordinary purposes, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there are criminal actors in this country and around the world who use that technology for unsavoury purposes.

We think about the ability of organized crime not simply to use digital communications but to communicate across borders in real time to facilitate the commission of very serious crimes. In my many conversations with law enforcement over the past year, they have pointed to the fact that this technology is often being used at a prolific rate when it comes to the commission of crimes relating to extortion in this country, often violent extortion in this country. We are being told repeatedly that home invasions and auto thefts are not simply one-off examples of isolated actors who are simply behaving badly on a particular day, but the result of sophisticated criminal organizations that have established a network and are using technology to communicate with those who are committing crimes on the ground.

We also know that when it comes to the very serious, most heinous crimes in Canada, sexual exploitation and abuse material are being committed against children. We know that the digital environment has caused the number of instances of this absolutely horrific criminal behaviour to increase dramatically in the number of examples we can find. One thing that is particularly challenging when it comes to the use of technology to commit these different kinds of atrocious criminal acts is the anonymity of the person who is doing wrong. It is not possible for the police to arrest an IP address or to investigate a phone number and bring it to prosecution. We have to understand that there are human beings who are willing to do bad things for their own personal gain and hide behind the anonymity that this technology can provide. If we want to keep Canadians safe, we must advance the law in a way that reflects the changes to technology.

I often speak with police officers and representatives of organizations that protect our communities. They tell me that as technology changes, the laws need to change along with it. Right now, criminal organizations can use technology to commit crimes with complete anonymity. It is not okay to simply accept these problems. We need to tackle these challenges by changing the laws, specifically the Criminal Code.

That is where this particular piece of legislation comes in. If we want the law to keep up with crime, we have to realize where we have fallen behind. This is where the concept of lawful access comes in, in the appropriately named lawful access act. Over the last number of years, countries around the world have been advancing their laws in a way that allows them to gain access to critical information, where a criminal investigation is taking place, to ensure that they are actually able to move forward with that investigation in order to stop crime and to prevent it, in the best case, or, when a criminal act is committed, to have the ability to bring the perpetrator to justice through a full and expeditious investigation, followed by a prosecution.

When I look around the world, it is clear that Canada needs to catch up. Every other G7 partner has established a lawful access regime. Each of our other Five Eyes partners has established a similar regime, and it is time for Canada to do the same.

The result of our current laws having failed to keep up with these rapidly changing technologies is that the investigations, although they still do take place, become cumbersome, difficult and time-consuming. When we are dealing with threats playing out in real time, it is important to understand that the ability to bring a perpetrator to justice depends upon police being able to do their job in real time as well.

This debate started not today, although it is formally under this piece of legislation, but in fact in one of the very first pieces of legislation we brought forward in this Parliament. At the time, it was Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We took that bill to this House. We consulted broadly, not only with law enforcement but with privacy experts, security experts and, importantly, members of Parliament from different parties. I want to give full credit to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety, for the extraordinary level of engagement he undertook to get this bill in a better place.

During those consultations, we heard that it is absolutely essential that Canada create the framework that will allow us to move forward with these kinds of investigations, but that we do so in a way that respects the privacy rights of Canadians and ensures that the state does not commit some overreach in its investigations seeking to stop these heinous criminal acts, which people unanimously agree we must change the law to address.

This particular bill would achieve that balance, in my view, in precisely the correct way. The first feature of this bill that I want to draw attention to is that it would establish a process through which law enforcement could make a request for very basic information of electronic service providers. We are not talking about privileged information. We are not talking about advice from lawyers. We are not talking about health care details. In the first instance, where there is an existing criminal investigation and the police believe a crime has been or will be committed, this bill would enable the police to make a request that would confirm the service of an Internet service provider or a cellphone company that is tied to a particular phone number or IP address. This is not asking about the content of particular messages that may have been sent, but only whether a particular number or IP address exists on a particular network. Let me explain why this piece is of particular importance.

When a police officer is charged with investigating a heinous crime, looking into extortion rings or the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, they frequently receive tips from foreign law enforcement agencies or come to understand through tools that we have here in Canada that there are specific phone numbers or IP addresses that lead law enforcement to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. However, we do not have the ability to act swiftly in Canada to deal with the threats that we do know exist, including when we receive these tips from foreign law enforcement agencies.

Let us think about the position this puts law enforcement in. When they are seeking to look into an IP address just to determine which network it may be on, the current process could take months. It requires production orders where someone would go before the court only to establish whether a particular IP address belongs to one network over another. If they got it wrong on the first one, the process would of course begin again with the second and third. This would provide for an expeditious pathway for law enforcement to request whether a particular phone number or IP address is tied to a particular service provider.

In the event that the service provider responds affirmatively and says that IP address, which is part of an existing criminal investigation, is in fact on their network, the next step would allow law enforcement to apply to the court, based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed, to have the network share the subscriber information, the name and address, that would be tied to that phone number or IP address.

When we think about this law simply keeping pace with changes to technology, we are not dealing with a broad-based overreach of information. This is the same information that used to be in our phone books. We do not see them around these days anymore, perhaps for obvious reasons. However, as a kid I remember it was common for a particular phone number to be listed next to a name and address. That information is not present when it comes to a person's IP address or modern cellphone numbers.

However, when the police believe that a particular IP address, through reasonably obtained information, is tied to criminal activity, we need to have the ability to understand what network that information rests upon and who the subscriber behind it is, which would allow the police to not only investigate who may be involved with the crime but, at the early stage of the investigation, save enormous law enforcement resources by ruling out certain actors from criminal investigations.

Let us keep in mind that throughout this process, even just to get the subscriber information, we are still requiring that law enforcement, under most circumstances, obtain judicial authorization before that information is shared. It is only where there are exigent circumstances, for example, where there is child exploitation being livestreamed, that there would be some provision for law enforcement to obtain this kind of information without first receiving judicial authorization.

This process I have laid out would position Canada as the jurisdiction amongst G7 counterparts, for example, that would contain the most serious privacy protections within a lawful access regime that comes to exist. It is important that, if we are going to ask this information of service providers, we also ensure that they maintain that information. One part of this bill is dedicated to the kind of information that those service providers would be required to hold. Now, we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages. Again, we are not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time, for example. This information would help ground a police investigation that could lead, obviously, to the prevention of crime, or perhaps to the investigation and prosecution of a crime.

There are other elements of this bill that would also facilitate the co-operation of international criminal investigations when it comes to organized crime. The ability to operate seamlessly across borders creates opportunities for criminal organizations and puts obstacles in place for the states that are seeking to combat their heinous activity. This bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canada to make requests of its international partners, should we believe that foreign networks may have the same kind of information that I have described that would allow us to dig more deeply into investigations. It would also allow other states that are concerned about information that may be held in Canada to co-operate, through agreements that we reach with our allies, to ensure that we are doing our part to help protect the security interests of our closest friends and allies.

Let us just think about what this means for law enforcement. It means that they are going to have more streamlined investigations. It means that they are going to be able to more quickly deal with threats that are playing out in real time. It means they are going to be able to do a better job at preventing crime from taking place in the first place and at conducting full investigations, should a crime be committed, to ensure that the bad actors are indeed brought to justice at the end of the day.

It struck me, when I was speaking to law enforcement, when the bill was first tabled, just how seriously they treated this issue. We were joined by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of police here in Ottawa. They not only described the urgency with which this issue must be addressed but lamented the decades-long process that it has taken successive governments of different parties to get here.

I want to read a quote from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique. He said, “I engaged in the first conversation on lawful access in 1996—”

I was still in elementary school when this conversation began.

—when police leaders said we were at risk of going dark for access to digital evidence. We are now here, 30 years later, with the support of this government. This is a non-partisan issue. This is a public safety issue. From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism. Lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now. So, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, my thanks to this government and my hope that all parliamentarians will work together to ensure the safety and security of this country.

I want to give my thanks in particular to Murray Rankin, a former colleague in the House, for his engagement on this issue and for consulting with stakeholders to ensure we had a broad base of perspectives to understand what changes needed to be made. I want to thank Leah West, a professor with unique expertise in security and privacy issues, who helped guide some of this work and provided invaluable feedback to get the bill in the shape that it is today. I want to thank the many stakeholders and parliamentarians who shared their perspectives to help us refine the initial version of the bill that was put forward into one that does a better job of advancing both security and privacy interests at the same time.

We must continue to introduce criminal laws if we want to fight crime in our communities. It is also essential to work with everyone so that the government understands the perspectives of the various people who have contributed to the solutions proposed to improve the bill.

We have an opportunity to do something in the House this week that has been 30 years in the making, and that is to bring Canada's laws in accordance with a modern standard that would give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our community safe. It is hard to imagine a more important outcome to pursue than that.