“We support this bill. We tried to change it so it would be easier for victims of stalking to prove abuse, but the Liberals rejected that change. I want to know what the minister thinks about this missed opportunity.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ongoing commitment to gender equality in the House. Consistent with the intent of the bill, the Bloc Québécois supported it and also proposed amendments in committee, in a spirit of collaborative development. However, the Liberals, who now have a majority, rejected one that I think is crucial. I would like to hear the minister’s thoughts on this matter. It was recognized that stalking is part of a pattern of coercive behaviour that must be assessed as a whole. This amendment would have somewhat shifted the burden of proof, which essentially rests with the victim. We have therefore missed an opportunity to make it easier for a woman to file a complaint and defend herself. What does the minister think?”

“The Liberal government is changing the bill to make bail easier and remove violence as a reason for harsher sentences. I want to know if this puts women and victims in more danger.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said about the time when there was a minority government. We were able to strike a sort of balance between a more progressive vision of the justice system, championed by the Bloc Québécois, and a more traditional vision focused on law and order, with harsher penalties, advocated by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority means that the government will be able to impose various measures, notably an amendment that unduly broadens the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards. Taken together, these elements create conditions in which the criterion of violence, usually used to justify harsher sentences, is removed. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on this. Does this create an additional risk for women and victims?”

“This bill has good parts. But the Liberals voted against our changes that would add strict rules, like no-contact orders and gun bans, for any crime against a partner. Why did the Liberals reject these protections for victims?”

“Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something important in this bill. However, in committee, the Liberals decided to vote against a Bloc Québécois amendment that would have applied mandatory conditions to any offence against an intimate partner, including purely financial disputes, such as fraud. These included a no-contact order, a ban on cross-examination, house arrest and a ban on possessing firearms. Evidence that a female victim could legally rely on to strengthen her defence is being rejected by the Liberals. Why is that?”