“I want the minister to explain why her party rejected our amendment. Our amendment would have made it easier for women to file complaints and defend themselves. It was important.”
What they said. What they meant.
Plain-language translations from the House of Commons.
Recent debates
8 latest topics
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
57 statements
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
19 statements
Arab Heritage Month Act
5 statements
The Economy
15 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Housing
12 statements
The Environment
2 statements
Government Orders
Protecting Victims Act
The Protecting Victims Act amends various laws to increase penalties for certain crimes, especially those involving intimate partner violence and child sex crimes. It creates new offenses like coercive control of an intimate partner, expands the definition of first-degree murder to include some killings of women, and makes other changes like allowing sentences below mandatory minimums in some cases to avoid cruel and unusual punishment. In debate, the governing Liberals argued the bill gets tougher on crime while staying within constitutional limits. The opposition Conservatives accused the government of inserting a "poison pill" that would let judges go below mandatory minimum sentences too easily, which the Conservatives said they oppose. Both sides claimed to support better protecting women and children, but argued over this provision.
“I want to talk about the old days when I could get my way. Now the Liberals can impose things I don't like. I think their changes to bail conditions might make things less safe for women and victims.”
“I want to ask why the Liberals rejected an amendment. It had more rules against people accused of financial disputes, not just violence. Why not add these rules too?”