“I support this bill to protect victims, even if it is not perfect. The Conservatives kept trying to delay our work on it in committee. I want to know what my colleague thinks of their actions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague’s thoughts about the study in committee of Bill C-16. The Conservatives made a lot of deliberate attempts to obstruct the work. While purporting to bring amendments beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues engaged in endless filibustering. Considering that we made some progress and that we support the bill, even though it may not be perfect, what does my colleague think of the Conservatives’ behaviour?”

“My party suggested a change to fix a mistake in the bill and improve legal support. I want to know why the government voted against it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would correct a mistake and improve legal support. I would like to know why the government members voted against that amendment when the rationale behind our proposal was sound and justified.”

“This bill includes recommendations from victims and the women's committee, like making coercive control a crime. Did the member talk about these ideas with his party?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he has taken an interest in the issue of women’s safety. He even participated in a few meetings of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Bill C‑16 incorporates many of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. These recommendations are based on requests from survivors and victims, particularly with regard to court delays and the criminalization of coercive control. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women made these recommendations and they have been incorporated into Bill C‑16. Did he discuss this with his Conservative colleagues?”

“I want the ethics committee to look into close ties between the Liberals and unregulated trucking groups. I am asking if the Conservatives will support my motion to investigate this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member. At that time, I had the opportunity to introduce a motion in which I denounced the close ties between the Liberals and the lobby representing the unregulated truckers responsible for the Drivers Inc. scheme, which undermines people’s working conditions and causes accidents. The Liberals seem quite close to these people. Some of them are even Liberal activists who allegedly fund the Liberal Party. I asked that the committee look into the matter. I would like to know if I can count on the support of my colleague and the Conservative Party on this issue.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill tries to better protect women. But it does not solve everything, and my colleague and I will explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, speaking of what happens behind the scenes, it certainly does look like someone is hiding behind the curtain. I will leave it at that. Bill C‑16 is the topic of discussion tonight. In all seriousness, this bill seeks to better protect women. However, the problem I see from the outset is that this bill will not solve everything. I will be talking about that, and I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, with whom I will be sharing my time, will also be talking about that.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 28 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 →

“My party supports this bill because it makes coercive control a crime and helps protect victims of violence. But changing the law is not enough. Women fleeing abuse also need safe housing, money, and shelters so they can actually leave. The federal government must send funding to Quebec to run these services without setting rules for how to do it.”

“This is the third time I have talked about this bill, though I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill ended up being extensively discussed by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I have already talked about it a lot. I may come back to Bill C‑16, but I also want to use my speech to talk about the fact that protecting women also requires better housing and local services. I will come back to that. The Bloc Québécois obviously supports the principle of Bill C‑16, which contains a number of important improvements for better protecting victims of violence. In particular, it recognizes coercive control. It strengthens certain victims’ rights and modernizes criminal law. However, one fundamental question remains: Can a woman be truly safe if she has nowhere to go after escaping violence? Justice is essential, but our committee also heard over and over that justice alone is not enough. I will begin by talking about the housing issue. I will then move on to the improvements that Bill C‑16 contains. I will close by talking about what makes Quebec different in this domain. A woman fleeing violence first needs a place to live. Behind every criminal record and every case file is a woman who has made the extremely difficult decision to leave her abuser. This decision often means giving up her home, leaving her job, uprooting her children and losing her financial security. Without a housing solution, many women remain trapped in their situations. What we heard at committee from survivors is that shelters are more than just places of refuge. The evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women served as a reminder of this. Shelters are true places of recovery. They provide shelter, psychosocial support, legal assistance, financial aid, support for children and assistance in building autonomy. For many women, it is the first night in a long time that they can sleep without fearing for their lives or those of their loved ones. Housing is also a public safety issue. A woman who leaves an abusive partner often has to choose between returning to her abuser or living in precarious conditions. It is absolutely terrible. She has to wait months for affordable housing. As long as this reality persists, no reform of the Criminal Code will be enough. I have some telling statistics. In 2024-25, Canada had approximately 561 residential shelters for victims of violence. Despite this, officials still identify the lack of affordable housing as one of the main obstacles to a sustainable escape from violence. Research shows that women who have access to second-stage housing are much more likely to rebuild their lives and avoid returning to their abuser. Sexual violence remains vastly under-reported. In fact, nearly nine out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported to the police. In 2024, 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada, including 25 in Quebec. There have already been 10 femicides in 2026. One of the first occurred in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford. I also mentioned coercive control. I would like to talk about some of the progress this bill will achieve after first discussing the importance of offering abused women more extensive help. Tackling coercive control is an important step forward. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of a coercive control offence. This recognition is essential. It follows on a study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did on my suggestion following a request by the Quebec National Assembly and members who had worked on a report on rebuilding trust. However, Ottawa did not budge. Late last year, after a number of years went by, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women held a press conference pointing out that one of the main recommendations in my report was to criminalize coercive control. This recognition is essential. Violence does not always leave visible wounds. The wounds can also be psychological, economic, social, digital or emotional. Financial dependence is often an integral part of this type of control. Even under the best laws, a woman who cannot afford housing or food for her children remains vulnerable. We absolutely need to work toward women’s economic empowerment, because we cannot break the cycle of domestic violence if a woman, even after years of trying, cannot accumulate the financial resources needed to escape that violence. She remains trapped in a cycle, in an endless spiral, where the man, to meet his own needs and expectations and to control his victim, exerts financial control over her. We must also consider women’s economic empowerment and ways to ensure women can fully take control of their financial lives. Another point that came up during the testimonies before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that we cannot overlook older women. Coercive control also affects older adults. What is concerning is that some women endure violence perpetrated by a spouse, a caregiver, or even an adult child. Data also show that there has been a significant increase in cases of domestic violence against older adults in recent years. The system must be able to recognize these specific realities. I also want to talk about the importance of respecting Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction, because social services, shelters and housing fall primarily under Quebec’s jurisdiction. Let us not forget that. The federal government must financially support these networks without imposing its own conditions. Quebec organizations are familiar with the realities on the ground and already meeting victims’ needs. It is therefore important to look at what is being transferred to help the organizations that work with victims. Staff are exhausted, and they need resources and means to care for these victims and care for survivors. Bill C‑16 is not perfect, so the Bloc Québécois had moved some amendments, particularly regarding section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is still far too subjective. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I moved, in collaboration with my Conservative colleagues, that we conduct a study of section 810 of the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois wanted to take that aspect out of Bill C‑16, because it has been proven that section 810 conditions can give victims a false sense of security. We moved amendments, and there are some amendments that could have been made to Bill C‑16. However, our chief concern is that the Criminal Code be strengthened and that new offences be created. The Criminal Code is a federal law, however, whereas the application and administration of justice are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I said that to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality yesterday, and I asked her to discuss it with her colleague, the Minister of Justice. If the government does not arrange for money to be transferred to Quebec for the administration of justice, in acknowledgement of the fact that a much bigger burden is going to be placed on Quebec’s justice system, it is going to be passing laws that cannot be enforced. There will not be enough resources to take care of victims and survivors properly. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑16. It is a real step forward for victims. However, we must guard against believing that the Criminal Code can fix everything and that it is some kind of magic wand. A woman needs effective justice, safe housing, a bed in a shelter, adequate income and quality psychosocial support. As I told the minister yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will be here to make sure nobody forgets the amendments our party put forward at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The best way to protect women is not only to punish abusers, but also to give victims the practical means to get away and rebuild their lives with dignity. We owe them that because there must be no more victims.”

“We wanted to change the law on peace bonds so the rules are clearer and victims are safer. The Liberals voted against our changes. We will keep pushing to fix this.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again. The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I agree with my colleague. The government should not disrupt groups that help abused women and build shelters. I want to know what real steps we can take to make sure the federal government works well with Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20, we were talking about building Canada. I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.”

“Wait lists for women's shelters are getting longer. There are not enough safe places for women and their children to go after an emergency shelter. This traps women in violent homes because they have nowhere else to live.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions. One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space. After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill includes my party's ideas to bring back minimum prison sentences for serious crimes, protect youth, and stop fake videos. It helps victims. We should vote on it now and move forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois’s proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois’s idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts. I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand. However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.”

“We need to make controlling and coercive behavior in relationships a crime. Police need this law so they can spot warning signs and help victims sooner.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because it protects women from violence and controlling partners. Ten women have been killed in Quebec in just four months. This bill makes controlling an intimate partner a crime and increases penalties for killing women. It also punishes people who share private sexual pictures without consent.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue. Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee’s work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person’s life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable. Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.”

“I want MPs to stop playing political games with this debate. On serious issues like crime and safety, we need to put people first and work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 33 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Members of Parliament should not use social media to raise money and campaign off this issue. It is wrong to put party politics ahead of basic human decency.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship. Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised. Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →

“Every witness who spoke to our committee asked us to pass this bill to protect victims. It will also help fix court delays. But the government must give Quebec and the provinces more money to help our courts handle these changes. I want to know if my colleague agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed. Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward. I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too. In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“We need to enforce our laws.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, this is about implementing and enforcing laws— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 50 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The provinces and Quebec must get the resources they need to put these measures in place. This will keep women safe and treat them with respect.”

“I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired. Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all. In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →

“I want the Liberals and Conservatives to stop arguing and focus on victims. The Conservatives wasted time during the study of this bill, and the Liberals voted down our good changes. Our changes would have helped judges look at an abuser's full history and threats against pets or loved ones.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will try to restore some calm because I am ashamed right now. Unfortunately, I am reliving a scene I witnessed at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where, instead of listening to victims, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues were bickering back and forth. The victims left in tears, and I am reliving that moment. Members on both sides can laugh and argue about this, but Bill C-16 addresses an issue that is far too important to victims for me to be witnessing what I am seeing right now. I feel ashamed on behalf of victims and survivors. I would like to come back to something. During the study of Bill C-16, the Conservatives filibustered while the Bloc Québécois was trying to be constructive and propose amendments. For example, we consulted legal experts to try to fix a mistake in this bill. The Bloc Québécois wanted to include provisions regarding an objective test. Such provisions would have enabled the judge to take into account the full context, the abuser’s history, coercive behaviour and threats against loved ones and pets. That is what the offence itself does. However, even though the amendments we proposed were logical, the Liberals voted them down. I would suggest that everyone calm right down because, seriously, the way we are handling Bill C‑16 right now is not at all in the public interest. Let us keep in mind that the purpose of Bill C‑16 is to find real solutions so there will be no more victims.”

“Even if this bill does not do enough, it still protects victims. I want MPs to be allowed to vote how they want instead of following party orders.”

“Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is clear that there is a party line. I can tell what my colleague wants. There are consequences to voting against this bill because it falls short and is not broad enough. We can analyze the situation and decide that the bill can be reassessed. Has there been any progress? If the answer is yes, can victims be kept safe right now? If the answer is yes, then I beg them to please hold a free vote.”

“I want us to pass this bill to help protect victims of violence. It does not fix every problem, but victims told our committee it is a needed first step. We can work together later to fix the rest of the bill and add other support like housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, based on what I heard tonight in this debate, I am not sure if my Conservative colleague has consulted with his colleagues. There are two things I have taken away from the testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women’s recent meetings on the issue of violence against women. First of all, the victims said that Bill C-16 was a necessary step. They said that we needed to take action and make the Criminal Code more effective. Earlier, I heard someone say that we were 99% in agreement. Once we get there, the remaining 1% can be addressed and worked out in a non-partisan manner. The other thing, of course, is that this bill does not solve everything. I acknowledge that, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges it too, and I told the minister so. We will come back with the amendments we proposed. Why not say that we will pass this bill and then work to propose additional measures? We could also address the broader ecosystem, in other words support groups, tackle the housing issue, and continue to work on the Criminal Code. We really need to look at this as a continuum of services.”