“I support this bill. Intimate partner violence is a serious crisis in Canada. The bill gives police and courts better tools to protect victims and hold abusers accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, usually when members rise in the House to speak to legislation, they do so with energy and exuberance. Today is very different. As a mother of two young women finding their way in the world, I really appreciate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this legislation; however, it is troubling that such legislation is even necessary, though it undeniably is. Far too often, intimate partner violence has persisted as a hidden crisis in our country. It is often left unspoken, pushed to the margins of public discourse and too easily overlooked. In many communities, particularly those already facing systemic barriers, it remains especially difficult to name, confront or escape. Too many Canadians endure this violence in silence. Whether it is due to stigma, manipulation and coercion, or a lack of confidence in the system meant to protect them, victims are too often left feeling unseen and unsupported, regardless of whether they come forward. This is happening to our friends and our families in communities across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga and our entire nation. It is this reality that brings us to this debate today. Legislation like Bill C-225 represents a strong step toward acknowledging the distinct and serious nature of intimate partner violence. It signals to the tens of thousands of Canadians that the government recognizes these harms and is prepared to equip law enforcement and the justice system with the tools needed to respond effectively and hold perpetrators accountable. Intimate partner violence and related issues, such as coercive control, have occupied a significant part of my time here in Ottawa, especially during the last Parliament, as I had the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we studied these issues extremely closely and thoroughly. We completed studies on gender-based violence and femicides against women, girls and gender-diverse people, as well as coercive behaviour. The committee prided itself, and I hope it still does, on its ability to put partisan differences aside and focus on the matter at hand: Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians, suffering in silence. I know that this spirit of co-operation, championed by my predecessor, Karen Vecchio, will continue with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who I want to congratulate on her recent election to that position. I would also like to thank my successor, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, for her work in the chair over the past year. Despite being one of the lesser-known committees, FEWO is by far the committee with the most to teach members in this place about working co-operatively and collaboratively, a lesson I hope is heeded and remembered as the government moves to amend committee composition. I think it is particularly fitting that the sponsor chose the Standing Committee on the Status of Women as the committee to review this legislation. That is what we need, a non-partisan approach to protect not just women suffering in abusive relationships but men and non-binary Canadians as well. As I was preparing this speech, I went back and took a look at the witness testimony at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to see what was said and what arguments were put forward both by members and by witnesses. I was particularly struck by the panel that appeared on the very first day, along with the sponsoring member. I am going to first acknowledge the conversation shared by Debbie Henderson. She spoke about the murder of her niece Bailey. She made the argument better than I ever could, so I would like to repeat a portion of her harrowing testimony: The system currently continues to extend the trauma and torment by forcing families to wait and see whether charges will be upgraded to first-degree murder. Our family had four and a half months of stress and anxiety waiting for Bailey’s murderer to have his charges upgraded to first degree. No family should have to live with the fear of wondering whether after a conviction they’ll be forced, at a parole hearing in 10 years, to face the person who cruelly stole their loved one. Given the severity and predictability of this type of violence, these murders should be treated as what they truly are—intentional, targeted and devastating acts. Killings in the context of intimate partner violence should be classified as automatic first-degree murders with the opportunity to apply for parole only after 25 years. We must also begin labelling violence as what it is. Assault against an intimate partner is not the same as a bar fight or an altercation with a stranger; it’s part of a pattern that is rooted in control, fear and escalating harm. Assaults should be clearly identified as intimate partner assaults so that the justice system can properly recognize the heightened risk they carry. Language matters because recognition drives prevention. There must also be stronger safeguards at the point of release. Repeat offenders, especially those convicted of violence or threats against a partner, should not simply be released back into the community following police involvement. They should be required to appear before a judge and be properly assessed for risk, because when the system underestimates danger, families pay the price. There needs to be real accountability within the system that is meant to protect the vulnerable and prevent foreseeable tragedies. Bill C-225 represents an opportunity to close the gaps, to recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence and to prevent other families from experiencing this unimaginable loss. Bailey should still be here. Her children should still have their mother. Our family should not be learning how to live with her permanent absence. Her words are crystal clear, and they make perfect sense. The murder of a partner is one of the most visceral, raw, intimate things one can do. It is not done in the heat of the moment. It is often the culmination of months, if not years, of verbal, emotional and mental abuse. It is the final act in a series of escalating manipulation and exploitation, a literal living hell where, for far too many, the only escape seems to be cold-blooded murder. Bill C-225 does not seek to, nor should it, address every single element of intimate partner violence. It needs to be considered as part of the wider tool box of public society in fighting this, a tool box that needs to include education, prevention and support for survivors and their families. The bill is an important piece of the puzzle. It would send the message that, God forbid, if someone does this, if someone violates the sanctity of trust, love and commitment of their partner, justice will be delivered, not just to the perpetrator but, more importantly, to the family and memory of the person who was taken out of their lives. This is not vengeance. This is closure.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects victims of partner abuse by creating new crimes, making it harder for abusers to get bail, and letting courts hold abusers to check their risk of hurting someone again.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is rare that a member of the House has to begin a speech with a trigger warning, but while some of what I am about to describe is difficult to hear, it is necessary if we are to fully comprehend why we must act on the issue of intimate partner violence. For far too many people in this country, intimate partner violence is not a topic; it is a lived reality. My speech and the bill are dedicated to the victims of intimate partner violence who are watching today. They are dedicated to the family of Bailey McCourt and to all people who did not get the luxury of turning away from what I am about to describe, because these memories that I share today are theirs. They are memories of being held down as the air is squeezed from their lungs. They are memories of complete control over their comings and goings, repeated blows and beatings, a knife used in a moment of rage, threats, isolation, abuse of children and pets, the shouting, the quiet calm before the rage, the knowing what that look means, and figuring out how to get the kids out of the room as if that means they will not hear. This is about rape, violence and death at home, in the very place that should have been the safest. It levels me every time I think about it, and we have to think about it in the House. Some people make it through. Some find the strength to speak. We heard this just days ago at the justice committee, where a survivor described with clarity and composure how control is built piece by piece until there is almost nothing left of the vibrant woman who once was. We heard it in the status of women committee testimony around the bill. However, too many people do not make it through. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, is dead and unable to speak, killed by a person who was supposed to love and protect her, hours after he was released on bail. Therefore we must speak for Bailey, and more than that, we must act. Bill C-225 is not symbolic. It is a response to a growing and serious problem. We know that the numbers do not tell the full story. We know that many cases go unreported. Fewer than one-third of victims report to police, which means that what police see is only a fraction of what is actually happening. Even less is reported on in our communities, which means that what we know, what we hear about, is an even narrower subset, yet in Canada in 2024, there were over 128,000 victims of intimate partner violence. That is 356 victims per 100,000 Canadians aged 12 and older. That is more than one victim for every person who lives in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. If victims of intimate partner violence were voters, they would fill an entire riding on their own. Women and girls are disproportionately affected. They experience intimate partner violence at three and a half times the rate that men do. When we consider homicides, we see that the numbers become even more stark. Nearly 80% of people killed by an intimate partner are women or girls. Among minorities and indigenous people, the numbers are even worse. These are not isolated incidents; this is a pattern, and beautiful Vancouver Island is not immune. Communities on Vancouver Island face high pressure in the system. We see that not just in police files but also in wait-lists and in service demand. Hundreds of people in our communities are waiting for safe housing and support, with hundreds on wait-lists for transitional and second-stage housing. This means that people ready to leave violence often have nowhere to go. It means delay, and delay in these cases can be deadly. Laura Gover, a 41-year-old mother and a professor at both Vancouver Island University and Camosun College, was murdered this January in her home by her ex-husband, the day before a court date, leaving behind two preteen daughters. Amy Watts was just 27 years old when she was thrown off a cliff to her death by her ex. In many of these cases, there are clear warnings signs, prior incidents and opportunities to intervene. Too often, these opportunities are fleeting or missed. An abuser does not rely on violence alone. They isolate. They manipulate. They reshape their victim’s world until it becomes smaller and smaller. They create a world where their victim begins to doubt their own instincts and lose their identity, then their confidence in the world around them, and ultimately their ability to leave. By the time the physical violence escalates, many victims are already trapped in ways that are not always visible from the outside, and it does escalate. That is what makes this issue so difficult and so dangerous. Our laws have simply not kept pace with reality. Bill C-225 would take important steps to close the gaps. It would create specific offences for violence against an intimate partner, recognizing that this is not the same as other forms of assault; it carries a higher risk of escalation and a higher risk of death. Bill C-225 would establish that when murder occurs in the context of intimate partner violence, particularly where coercive control is present, it should be treated as first-degree murder. This would reflect the reality that these acts are rarely sudden but rather are the result of a pattern. These provisions would remove the strain on families while they wait to see whether charges will be upgraded. The bill would strengthen peace bonds by introducing reverse onus provisions, ensuring that people who pose a risk are not released without serious consideration of the danger they present. The bill would allow for a seven-day period of custody for risk assessment, giving authorities the time needed to properly evaluate the threat and to take steps to further protect victims. The bill would address how evidence is handled, recognizing that these cases often involve patterns of behaviour over time, not just a single incident. These are measured, practical changes designed to intervene earlier and to prosecute more effectively, because there have been too many cases where the signs were there, the risk was known and the outcome could have been different: Bailey McCourt, Laura Gover and Amy Watts. We say their names. These are cases that weigh on our communities and raise difficult questions about whether more could have been done. Bill C-225, Bailey’s law, is about doing better. It is about recognizing patterns of abuse before they escalate to the point of no return. It is about giving our justice system tools that reflect what we now understand about coercive control, intimate partner violence and the tools that law enforcement needs to respond, and it is about sending a clear message that this kind of violence will be treated with the seriousness it deserves. All members of the House have spoken to survivors of intimate partner violence. All of us have tried to comfort grieving families. The question is no longer whether we understand the problem. The question is whether we are prepared to act. I admire my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for bringing the bill forward after extensive consultation. The bill reflects the voices of victims, the work of advocates and the painful lessons learned from cases that should never have ended the way they did: in trauma, in injury or in death. I applaud my colleague for working with communities and in committee to come up with meaningful legislation to push back the evil, to make the system see and to transform suffering into change. Passing the bill would not solve everything. There is more work to be done on prevention, on support services and on ensuring that people have safe options when they need to leave, but Bill C-225 is a meaningful step. It acknowledges the reality of what victims face, and it would move us closer to a system that reflects that reality. We cannot keep responding after the fact. We must intervene earlier. We must take risk seriously, and we must put the safety of victims at the centre of our approach. That is what Bill C-225 would do, and that is why it deserves the support of every member of the House. May the memory of each of the victims be a blessing, and may they inspire the House to take all steps possible to end intimate partner violence.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect people from abusive partners. It creates tougher sentences for abusers and makes killing an intimate partner during a pattern of abuse first-degree murder.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Bringing forward legislation like this requires a willingness to engage directly with painful realities and to carry the weight of a story that no family should ever have to live through. The care and seriousness with which this bill has been developed shows a genuine commitment to protecting women and ensuring that intimate partner violence is finally recognized in law for the danger it presents, because a crime unpunished is a crime unrecognized and encouraged. I also want to thank all the members of the House for recognizing the importance of this bill and allowing it to progress this far. I sincerely hope that sentiment continues and that we are able to make this critical bill into law. It should come as no surprise to hear that crime is on the rise across Canada. We can see it in our daily lives. More and more Canadians are living in fear, and unfortunately, this trend extends to intimate partner violence. An increasing number of women are dying at the hands of their partners. Intimate partners are connected through trust, proximity and often financial or emotional dependence. The person causing harm is not a stranger. It is someone with access, knowledge and control. When the law ignores that context, it ignores the heightened risk that comes with it. When these relationships become violent, it is all the more isolating, and it is that much more difficult for victims to seek help. Further, when the numbers on intimate partner violence keep rising, it is a sign that the system is failing. Worse yet, when victims do seek help, like in Bailey McCourt’s case, the risks to them are still not addressed. Bailey was a young mother of two living in Cloverdale. She was trying to protect herself and her children. The relationship she was in had become violent and threatening. This was not even a single incident. The harm happened more than once, and the danger continued to escalate. On the morning of July 4, Bailey’s former partner appeared in court and was convicted of assaulting her. By then, the justice system had a clear picture. There was a history of violence, there was a pattern of behaviour and there was a woman who had already been harmed and had made her fear known. Even so, after the conviction, he was released without a requirement for a full assessment of whether Bailey’s life was still at risk. Hours later, Bailey was murdered in broad daylight. This shows that the system failed to treat intimate partner violence as the ongoing and escalating threat that it was. We heard from the families of victims of intimate partner violence during the committee study for this bill. These women were daughters, sisters and mothers, and died at the hands of someone they knew and trusted. These families expressed how the patterns of coercive control went unrecognized all the way through the process, even when it came to sentencing. Bailey’s death shows us where our laws fall short. Bill C-225 is about closing that gap. It is about making sure that when violence happens with an intimate relationship, the law responds with the seriousness it deserves. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that when an intimate partner is killed in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour, that homicide is treated as first-degree murder. The same applies when the killing occurs while that coercion or control is taking place. In these cases, the law would no longer look only at the final act, but would recognize the pattern that led to it. Bill C-225 also speaks to cases of manslaughter involving an intimate partner. Where manslaughter occurs in the context of coercive or controlling behaviour, the bill would require the court to consider whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed. It would not dictate the outcome, but it would ensure that sentencing fully reflects the seriousness of the circumstances. This bill would ensure that the law reflects what people already understand about how violence develops in relationships, and that this understanding is reflected at the point of sentencing. When there is a pattern of abuse, coercive conduct or controlling behaviour toward an intimate partner, that pattern must be treated as an aggravating factor. This is a very important step, because when people who work in policing, in shelters and in community services talk about these situations, they describe something very consistent, which is that violence within relationships rarely begins at its most extreme point, but instead develops over time, often starting with controlling behaviour, such as decisions about where someone can go, who they can see and how they can spend money, before moving into intimidation and eventually physical harm. By the time the situation reaches its most serious point, there has often been a long progression of behaviour leading up to it. When that progression is not clearly reflected in how the system responds, it leaves a gap between what is known about the situation and how it is ultimately treated. That is a gap this bill is addressing. One of the problems lies in how we look at violence in the law. An assault is largely treated the same, no matter the circumstances. Whether someone attacks a stranger on the street or harms the person they live with, trust, depend on and share their life with, the charge is often the same, but those situations are not the same. In Bailey’s case, what stands out is not only the outcome, but the fact that there were visible signs that the situation was becoming more serious. When those signs are present, they should influence how the case is treated, particularly when it reaches sentencing, because that is the point where the court is deciding how the offence is recognized and how it is addressed. This bill would ensure that those patterns are not overlooked or treated as secondary, but instead are recognized as part of the offence itself when the sentence is determined. There is also another part of this that is important to understand, and that is how situations can shift once the justice system becomes involved. There is often an assumption that once charges are laid, things are under control, but that is not how it works in practice. There can be a period where the situation becomes more unstable, particularly when the aggressor understands that consequences are approaching and that their freedom may be limited. That awareness can change behaviour and often escalate the threat. When we look at these situations from that perspective, it becomes clear why it is important for the law to take a full view of what has been happening, not just what happened at one moment, but the pattern that led up to it. That pattern often tells us far more about the level of risk than the final act alone. Families that have lived through these situations often describe the same experience: they saw changes, they recognized that things were getting worse and they tried to raise those concerns. We also hear that they are left wondering why the response did not reflect what was happening. That question never leaves them because the outcome of what happened to their loved ones can never be undone. When the response does not match the level of risk, families are left carrying that loss, and that stays with them so much longer after the case itself. Families are broken and children lose their mother. We have also heard from women who have had to take serious steps just to stay safe, leaving their homes and their communities because they did not feel protected where they were. When we take a closer look at what that actually means, it becomes clear that these are not small decisions. It means leaving behind stability, support systems and everything familiar just to create distance from someone who has become a threat in their life. It can involve finding a place to stay on very short notice, changing routines and trying to rebuild daily life while dealing with uncertainty and fear. For some, it goes even further. Victims might leave their region, their province and even the country they were born and raised in, because they believe it is the only way to protect themselves. When someone reaches that point, it says something about the gap between the level of risk they are facing and the level of protection they believe is available to them. In my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries, and all across Canada, Canadians are concerned about situations where risk builds over time and where they are not confident that those risks are being taken seriously enough. They are not speaking in general terms. They are speaking about what they have seen and experienced. They are asking whether the system recognizes danger early enough and responds in a way that reflects how serious it can become. For those reasons and more, I support this legislation. I would encourage all members of this House to take a close look at what this bill is doing and why it has been brought forward. We owe that to Bailey, to all victims, to their families and to women who may be in situations where the risk is already building. This is a step forward we can take together and it is one that will make a real difference because crime unpunished is crime encouraged.”

“I want the House to pass my bill against intimate partner violence. All parties now plan to vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today I am especially honoured to rise in reply to Bill C-225, the private member’s bill that I put forward on intimate partner violence. It feels as though it was just yesterday, but it was around November when I was speaking about this bill and attempting to persuade this House to pass the bill. It is against that backdrop that I just had a brief conversation with one of my hon. colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, and learned the Liberals are going to support and vote for this bill. This is tremendous. This is how things are supposed to work. I want to thank some people. The member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake had a profound impact on this bill. He gave up his private member’s slot so this bill could move forward. I am profoundly grateful to him, and I think all victims of intimate partner violence and stakeholders are equally grateful. I am similarly grateful to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot in the private member’s bill rotation. As a result, this bill got to a vote on third reading in what I think is probably record time. It is not very often we see private members’ bills get to a vote within five or six months, and here we are at third reading. I am profoundly indebted to both members. I also want to recognize their service to Canadians and their recognition of victims of intimate partner violence. They are part of the solution by advancing this legislation. I want to thank all who spoke on this bill, particularly, at third reading. I want to thank Bailey’s family, Paige, Karen, Shane, Trish, Debbie, Bailey’s children and all others who I may not have mentioned who are part of Bailey’s family, her loved ones and those who continue to mourn her death. I want to thank my staff, Rofiat Agboola, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo, Clare Cyr, Tracy Gilchrist and Christine Savage, for putting up with and navigating through all the ups and downs of this process. There have been a few speed bumps, but, ultimately, we got here. My belief is that we will see unanimous support for this bill when we vote on Wednesday. I am mindful of the fact that the Minister of Justice’s office played a key role in meeting with victims. I mentioned my staff, who went above and beyond and liaised with Zoe Romeo and other members of the minister’s staff. There were extensive amendments at committee, and I want to recognize the collaborative nature of the status of women committee and all witnesses who appeared, too many to name in this short speech, but they know who they are. I also want to thank all those who emailed me and wrote letters saying they suffered in silence from intimate partner violence and those who stopped me on the street, which happens to members of Parliament more than those watching at home might think, and thanked me. A few stand out in my mind. This bill is for them. With the assurance that the Liberals will be voting for this at third reading, with my belief that all other members will be supporting this bill and against the backdrop of just having welcomed new members who will get to add their signature to this bill, I am incredibly honoured and profoundly grateful to stand as the sponsor of a bill that recognizes the scourge of intimate partner violence, but, more concretely, addresses the issue here where it should be addressed in Parliament.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 25 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →