Criminal Code
Bill to Amend--Second Reading
June 9, 2026
Moved second reading of Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Honourable senators, when beginning a speech such as I am today, I would usually say that I am pleased to do so, but to be honest, speaking to a bill dealing with the scourge of intimate partner violence throughout our country is not something that gives me any degree of pleasure or satisfaction.
With that said, having the privilege to speak at any level on behalf of the victims of intimate partner violence and their families is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
The opportunity to stand here on the floor of the Senate of Canada and be a voice for the voiceless is something that I have never taken for granted or will ever underestimate.
Today I am speaking to Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill was presented to the House of Commons by Frank Caputo, Member of Parliament for the British Columbia riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The bill passed third reading in the other place a few weeks ago, on April 27, and I want to thank MP Caputo and all the members of the House of Commons for their support for the bill.
Mr. Caputo has worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation, and now that it is before us here in the Senate, I will be asking for the consent of all my colleagues to get this very important and timely piece of legislation across the finish line.
Some of you have inquired into how this bill came about. Sadly, it came about because of a terrible tragedy that occurred a little less than a year ago, on July 4, 2025. On that fateful day, Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, was fatally attacked in broad daylight in a Kelowna, British Columbia, parking lot. Her husband, James Edward Plover — reportedly with a hammer — attacked Bailey and her friend Carrie Wiebe, who was present in the car at the time.
Bailey succumbed to her injuries, while Carrie survived with multiple very serious injuries. Plover was pursued by police and was arrested a short time later. As of February 2026, he is facing charges of first-degree murder and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
The extremely sad part of this story is that hours before the fatal attack that took Bailey’s life, her husband was in a Kelowna courtroom, where he was convicted of domestic violence charges, which were assault by strangulation and uttering threats against his estranged wife.
While you may find it very difficult to believe, Plover was not remanded in custody and was allowed to walk out of that courtroom under existing bail conditions while awaiting sentencing. Yes, it is just so difficult to believe that he left the courtroom that day with very few restrictions and within a few hours attacked and killed Bailey.
The failure of our justice system to protect Bailey and countless other victims across this country galvanized her family and numerous others to actively petition the federal government to develop and legislate stricter bail laws concerning intimate partner violence. Eventually, the efforts of Bailey’s family and others, along with the tremendous support and dedication of MP Frank Caputo, have led to the development of the bill that is before us here today, Bill C-225.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to:
(a) create a new specific offence of murder in the first degree if the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct;
(b) provide that if an offender commits manslaughter against their intimate partner while engaging in, or after having engaged in, a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, the court must consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on the offender, and, if that sentence is imposed, an adult offender is ineligible for parole for 10 to 25 years;
(c) create new offences in respect of included offences in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner; and
(d) increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to 180 days.
To simplify the summary of the bill and to move away from the legal jargon, once Bill C-225 is passed into law, the bill will make murder of an intimate partner first-degree when there is a history of coercive control. It will create the offence of violence against an intimate partner, and it will increase sentences for violence against an intimate partner. It will create a reverse onus for those on peace bonds, and it will increase time for the holding of evidence after seizure.
In response to the scourge of intimate partner violence in Canada today, the passage of this bill would hold repeat offenders, strengthen our justice system’s response to cases of intimate partner violence and protect, in a more substantial way, the victims of such.
MP Caputo is a former parole officer and Crown prosecutor, and he was recently quoted as saying that he is “. . . convinced that our laws on intimate partner violence have been inadequate in addressing the seriousness of this insidious crime.”
I couldn’t agree with him more.
When this bill is passed, it will be fittingly referred to as “Bailey’s Law” to honour the legacy of Bailey McCourt and to put in place a law in our country to ensure Bailey’s family — especially her two children — know that Bailey’s life on this earth was not in vain.
I want to take a moment to thank Bailey’s family for their tireless advocacy in continuing to push for these necessary changes to our justice system. I want to especially thank Bailey’s aunt Debbie Henderson, who is with us here today, and her family, Shane, Trish, Paige and Karen.
Colleagues, there are no boundaries when it comes to intimate partner violence. It happens in many forms of relationships, including marriage, common law or dating relationships, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners and at any time during a relationship and even after it has ended. It may occur in both public and private spaces as well as online and in many other ways, but they all have to deal with the issue of one person gaining control over another individual.
Intimate partner violence is all about control, and that is the major factor behind the development of Bill C-225.
The cloak of secrecy around intimate partner violence has created a travesty of justice that has prevailed because of that level of control, along with fear, stigma and the absence of a law to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
When it comes to the statistics on intimate partner violence in Canada today, the numbers are staggering, even for the very small number of incidents that do get reported to the police. Remember: The police believe that fewer than 10% of intimate partner violence cases are reported. Here are some of the numbers: Police reported cases of intimate partner violence in 2024 totalled 128,175 individuals — 356 victims per 100,000 population aged 12 and older. Since 2018, intimate partner violence among victims aged 12 and older grew by 14%.
To look at the gender differences in those of victimization, the rate of women and girls was 553 per 100,000 aged 12 and older and 158 per 100,000 for men and boys aged 12 and older. Women and girls experience intimate partner violence at a 3.5 times higher rate than the rate of men and boys.
The number of homicides related to intimate partner violence grew in large numbers, with 79% of cases being women and girls. The highest rate of police-reported intimate partner violence cases in Canada was in Saskatchewan, at 714 per 100,000, for a total of 737 cases, with Manitoba coming in at second place, with 607 per 100,000, for a total of 568 cases.
Approximately 61% of Indigenous women have experienced some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime, compared to 44% of non-Indigenous women. Twenty-one per cent of Indigenous women experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner versus 11% of non-Indigenous women.
2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, particularly transgender and sexual minority individuals, experience substantially higher levels of violence and intimate partner violence compared to heterosexual counterparts, which indicates systematic vulnerabilities.
One statistic that I believe is the most important eye-opener of all when it comes to the level of intimate partner violence in Canada is this: Every 48 hours in this country, a woman is killed by her intimate partner. It is a frightening statistic in a land known for our free and law-abiding society.
Intimate partner violence is a leading, pervasive and serious threat to individuals and communities across every province and territory in our country. The number of victims — particularly women — is alarming and underscores the need for targeted and sustained action. The impacts of intimate partner violence are profound and far-reaching, affecting not only those who experience violence directly but also their families and loved ones, such as Bailey’s, and our society as a whole.
I want for a moment to take you all the way from Kelowna, British Columbia, to the other end of the country, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. My home province also has alarming statistics when it comes to intimate partner violence. As you are all fully aware, I currently have my own bill before the House of Commons, Bill S-242, dealing with the serious issue of intimate partner violence, which was brought to my attention by another victim of IPV, Georgina McGrath of the town of Branch.
Unlike Bailey, Georgina survived her attacker and has now become a leading advocate for intimate partner violence victims.
A few days ago, the new Government of Newfoundland and Labrador officially declared gender-based violence an epidemic in our province and appointed a 12-person task force to deal with the growing issues surrounding IPV. I am delighted that Georgina has been appointed as one of the members of that task force.
The reason I wanted to take you across the country to my home province is because I want to tell you about another tragic story, which may have been prevented if a piece of legislation such as Bailey’s Law had existed in Canada at that time.
A couple and their two children came to our province from Syria around 2014-15 and settled in St. John’s, where three more children were added to the family.
In the fall of 2023, the young mother of five went to the police about alleged abuse at the hands of her husband. In December of 2023 and January of 2024, charges were laid against the husband alleging abuse going back over a decade. The long list of charges included assault with a weapon, making death threats and forcible confinement.
At one point, the mother and five children were placed in a shelter for family members experiencing domestic violence. After, they returned to their home, where new doors and locks were installed on the house as an added security measure.
Court documents show that there was an arrest warrant issued for the husband in January 2024 after he failed to show up for a scheduled court appearance. He was taken into custody but was released in late January on the condition that he not have contact with his wife, children and a list of others.
On March 5, 2024, the mother of five dropped off her children at their school. A very short time later, it is alleged that the husband — the father of the five children — kidnapped his wife from a neighbourhood near the school and took her five kilometres away to an abandoned house in Outer Cove just outside the city limits. It is there that he allegedly entered the abandoned house and killed his wife.
The alleged murderer was twice released from custody while facing up to 12 very serious criminal charges, all dealing with intimate partner violence.
Today, these five children are basically orphans but are blessed in a great way by a large, loving and supportive Syrian population in our province.
Do we need tougher and more substantive laws in this country to deal with people like the husband who killed this mother of five? Is there any one law that will stop the scourge of intimate partner violence in Canada today?
Regretfully, there is not any one law to stop intimate partner violence. However, by coming together in this chamber today and giving Bill C-225, Bailey’s Law, the attention it deserves, we can go a very long way toward preventing what happened to Bailey in a parking lot in Kelowna, British Columbia, and what happened to a mother of five children in an abandoned house in Outer Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador.
From coast to coast, intimate partner violence is a problem.
The tried-and-true saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure rings thoroughly through the pages of Bill C-225. We need this piece of legislation. The families of Bailey McCourt and countless other victims across this country need this bill as well.
When dealing with any piece of legislation addressing intimate partner violence, I am constantly reminded of the words of former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, which I will read in this chamber once again:
Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And, it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development and peace.
Bill C-225 is one seeking support across party lines; it is as non-partisan as any bill before us could ever be. This bill is not about MP Caputo. It is not about me or any of us here in this chamber or in the other place.
Bill C-225 is about all the thousands and thousands of victims of intimate partner violence across our country who need to be protected from the cowards who inflict immeasurable harm, then, in so many cases, freely walk away and never have to pay for their crimes.
Bill C-225 is also for the many families who are victims, such as Bailey McCourt’s, who are left to pick up the pieces after the low-life perpetrators dish out their violence.
Having a daughter and a granddaughter myself in today’s world, and seeing the statistics of intimate partner violence rising steadily across our country, I will continue to stand up for the victims and their families where and when I can. That is why I am proud to be the sponsor of Bill C-225 here in the Senate today.
My wish today is that we can all come together to facilitate the quick passage of this bill so it can become the law of the land before we mark the first anniversary of the tragic death of Bailey McCourt on July 4 last year.
Colleagues, I hope you feel the same way as I do. Thank you.
Honourable senators, this bill is known as Bailey’s Law. I would like to start there.
Behind most legislation of this kind is the name of a person whose loss became the reason Parliament finally acted. MP Frank Caputo, the sponsor of this bill, thanked Bailey McCourt’s family — and I want to thank Bailey’s aunt for being here today — for their courage and determination in helping bring this law forward. I join him in those thanks. Making grief public in the service of others is one of the most generous things a family can do.
Bailey’s Law passed third reading in the House of Commons on April 27, 2026. It now comes to us, and the numbers tell us why it cannot wait. My friend Senator Manning has shared some of these numbers, and they bear repeating.
Over the past decade, 79% of intimate partner homicide victims were women and girls. In 2024, police across Canada reported 128,175 victims of intimate partner violence, at a rate of 356 per 100,000 Canadians aged 12 and over. Since 2018, that rate has risen by 14%. Women and girls experienced intimate partner violence at 3.5 times the rate of men and boys. In the most extreme cases — homicides — intimate partners accounted for 100 deaths in 2024 alone.
These are not statistics; they are lives. For too long, our criminal law has treated intimate partner violence as a variant of ordinary violence, as if assaulting a stranger and assaulting the person you share your life with are equivalent. They are not. One is random; the other is a betrayal of trust, intimacy and sometimes financial dependence. One happens once, but the other too often happens in a pattern: escalating, cyclical and frequently invisible to the systems meant to stop it.
In its final form, as passed by the House, Bill C-225 makes four significant changes to the Criminal Code.
First, it creates a new specific offence of violence against an intimate partner. Until now, the Criminal Code has treated assault as assault, distinguishing only for peace officers. Bill C-225 adds a second distinction: intimate partners. When an offence is named, it is tracked. When it is tracked, patterns become visible. When patterns become visible, we can respond.
Second, the bill addresses homicide. When a murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, it is classified as first-degree murder, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate in the traditional sense. Where manslaughter occurs in those same circumstances, the court must consider whether to impose a life sentence, with parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years. This clearly says that killing someone you have controlled and terrorized is among the gravest crimes under our laws.
Third, the bill extends the period for retaining seized evidence from 90 days to 180 days. The bill had initially proposed a one‑year period, and the version of the bill before us proposes 180 days. In my view, this is an improvement that frees officers from filing repeated court applications simply to retain seized items during complex investigations, particularly those involving digital evidence or forensic analysis.
Fourth, the bill strengthens reverse onus provisions for bail in intimate partner cases, requiring accused persons with prior intimate partner violence, or IPV, convictions or those already subject to peace bonds in relation to an intimate partner to explain why their detention is not justified.
Colleagues, as the critic of the bill, let me take a moment to address some of the main concerns during committee stage in the other place regarding this bill. The scrutiny it received at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women from victim advocates, including Bailey’s family, victim services organizations, and the National Police Federation, made it better. Let me explain how.
The most serious concern raised at committee was that the bill, in its original form, proposed to automatically classify all killings of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. The problem, as the testimony from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale made clear, is that this framing does not distinguish between types of perpetrators. Consider three people who might kill an intimate partner: a controlling abuser who kills to maintain dominance; a person who commits an isolated act of violence; and a victim of sustained abuse, who, in a moment of terror or desperation, kills their abuser. Under the original bill, all three would have faced the same charge: automatic first-degree murder.
As Louise Riendeau of Regroupement testified, while self-defence remains an available defence, in cases where a victim has not reported prior abuse, which is most cases, that defence can become very complex. A law designed to protect victims would, in some cases, punish them with a mandatory 25-year parole ineligibility. That is not what we want. This was a fundamental concern, and the bill was amended to address it directly. The version before us today no longer automatically elevates all intimate partner killings to first-degree murder. The standard is now a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct. This is a crucial distinction that targets any abuser who systematically terrorized their partner before killing them rather than sweeping in victims who acted in self-defence.
The National Police Federation, or NPF, made the same point in committee: Protecting victims has to be central to the bill’s application and intent. A related concern came from Sabrina Nadeau of À cœur d’homme and from witnesses that commented on the government’s similar initiative. Their argument was this: Domestic violence is not a series of isolated incidents but, rather, a pattern of progressively escalating behaviours. Charging individual acts without recognizing the pattern is like documenting bruises without ever asking how they got there.
This critique shaped the current bill significantly. The coercive and controlling conduct standard that now anchors the first‑degree murder and manslaughter provisions is precisely the pattern-based framework that witnesses called for. Rather than treating an intimate partner killing as a stand-alone event, the law now asks: Was this the culmination of a pattern of systematic abuse? If it was, the full weight of the law applies.
The National Police Federation raised concerns that were equally important. Their president, Brian Sauvé, testified that front-line officers are not experts in determining, in the moment, whether a situation meets the threshold of an intimate partner violence offence. Officers make operational decisions under pressure, reacting with incomplete information. If the charge approval process puts excessive scrutiny on those split-second judgments, it creates the opposite effect on enforcement powers.
The response in the current version of the bill is sensible: Tagging offences to an intimate partner context allows information to be shared across police services and gives officers arriving on scene crucial risk context, even when the suspect is unknown locally. At the same time, the charge approval process, with Crown counsel review, should remain the appropriate place for a more nuanced determination about whether the intimate partner context has been properly established.
The NPF also raised a concern that points beyond the bill itself. They advised that new provisions requiring enhanced information sharing are constructive and preventative, but their success depends entirely on the availability of mental health and forensic resources, particularly in rural and remote communities. Without adequate federal, provincial and territorial investments, these provisions risk becoming unfunded obligations that are downloaded onto already stretched police services.
That is a message for this chamber and for this government: Passing this law is necessary but not sufficient. The shelters, mental health services and the community supports that interrupt violence before it reaches the criminal justice system must follow.
Colleagues, as critic of the bill, I also want to be clear about what this bill does not do. Bill C-225 is a criminal law response to intimate partner violence. It is a necessary response. However, witnesses at committee were right to ask: What about upstream investments? What about women’s shelters, social services, mental health supports and community infrastructure that can interrupt the cycle of violence before it reaches the criminal justice system?
Intimate partner violence is not a phenomenon that begins with a crime; it begins with conditions, such as economic precariousness, isolation, coercive control and the absence of alternatives. Criminal law can provide retribution for victims and their families, but it cannot, by itself, prevent. Isn’t that what we — families and Canadians — would want: to prevent intimate partner violence in the first place?
This is where governments — federal, provincial and territorial — play an important role. Continued investments from governments in prevention are just as important, if not more so than legislation, because it interrupts the chain of conditions that leads to abuse.
I support Bill C-225. I support it because 128,175 Canadians were victimized by intimate partners last year, and most of them were women. I support it because 100 Canadians were killed by intimate partners in 2024, and we have not done enough. I support it because the communities most affected by this violence have been asking for exactly this kind of response, and they deserve to see it enacted.
I support it because of Bailey.
This bill is the result of consultations with women’s groups, with victims, with the police and with the communities most affected.
My apologies, colleagues. This has also affected my family. My sister, who if not for her family intervening at the right time, may not be here today.
The House Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard difficult testimony and allowed it to reshape the legislation, which is now before us in this chamber amended, improved and more precisely refined.
Every officer, including myself, who has stood at a door, in the dark, unsure of what they will find inside, and every officer who has seen what coercive control does to a person over months and years understands why this bill matters. I support it. I urge its swift passage.
And to Bailey McCourt’s family: Parliament hears you. We will try our best to honour that. Thank you, colleagues.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)
