TranslatePolitics.ca

Larry Brock

Conservative 9:30 p.m.

“I want to give half my speaking time to someone else.”

Larry Brock

Conservative 9:30 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words about my riding. Then I say Bill C-16 doesn't go far enough. Mandatory minimums should stay mandatory. Judges went too easy on child sex offenders. We should lock them up longer, not make sentences weaker. Judges could give one-day sentences under Bill C-16. We warned the Justice Minister his changes would cause problems. Now drug dealers get softer sentences too. We should restore the old mandatory minimums we had before.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding. This is now the third, or possibly the fourth, substantive intervention I have made on Bill C-16, not to mention the numerous interventions during our study at the justice committee and our extensive discussions during clause-by-clause consideration. I want to take this opportunity to pivot in a new direction. I want to take this opportunity to explain to Canadians the truth behind the bill, not the fiction and not the utopian world that the Liberal government is trying to portray. We have heard so often that it is like Chicken Little. The new Liberal government says that it is so serious about community safety and victim rights and that it is taking its responsibilities seriously. I have always said, during the numerous town halls I have conducted across this country, that the number one responsibility for the tired Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. Why is it that after the 2025 election, there are three pieces of criminal legislation that would only move the needle so far but would not complete what is necessary to restore balance in our criminal justice system? We could take, for instance, Bill C-9. Everything was progressing reasonably at committee on Bill C-9 until a backroom deal was brokered between the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois to remove a 52-year-old statutory defence in the Criminal Code and potentially criminalize preachers and faith leaders who read out passages from their religious texts. That is Bill C-9. On Bill C-14, the government heard from all major stakeholders in this country for years. They were pleading and begging the government to give them the tools to keep violent repeat criminals off the streets. They were terrorizing communities and terrorizing victims. The government claims that it listened to those calls. It introduced Bill C-14. We talked about the principle of restraint in Bill C-14, which the government introduced under Justin Trudeau in 2019. It mandated that all accused were to be released at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. We Conservatives said that we needed to put the appropriate brakes on those who would terrorize our communities repeatedly. We needed to replace the principle of restraint with the principle of protection of the community. Hence, the member for Oxford, my colleague, brought the jail not bail act, a reasonable piece of legislation supported by major police associations and chiefs across this country. The government rejected it, and now we are debating Bill C-16. Again, I want to separate fact from fiction. The fiction the government is trying to demonstrate and argue is that Conservatives were always obstructionist when it came to debating Bill C-16 in committee, when we were looking at and studying the bill. The fact of the matter is that 99% of Bill C-16 was always supported by the Conservative Party of Canada. There was a poison pill and a red line, which is contained in clause 63 of the bill, that would completely upend the effectiveness of our criminal sentencing regime. It would cause mandatory minimum penalties to no longer be considered mandatory minimum penalties by allowing judges, of their own accord or through application by the accused or their defence counsel, to argue that the application of a mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment. Where did this discussion come from? It came from that disastrous decision by our highest court just a few blocks down from this hallowed House, the Supreme Court of Canada. It ruled in Senneville that a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the collection and the accessing of child sexual abuse material is contrary to section 12 of the charter. These two individuals who brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada had amassed hundreds and hundreds of still images and videos of victims as young as three years of age engaged in the most grotesque form of sexual activity with adults. Our learned justices down the road deemed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to subject those two sadistic perverts to serve a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty. If I were the justice minister, I would say one year is not enough. Lock them up for five years, because that is where they belong, or longer. If we were talking about a similar case a few hours away from the Ottawa region in the United States, in New York state, those two sadistic perverts would be looking at double digits in prison. That is the difference between our two justice systems. What is even more appalling about that decision, and this is the problem with Bill C‑16, is that the trial judge on their own determined that notwithstanding the size of the collection and the content, as disturbing as it is, a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty was too harsh. That trial judge gave those two perverts a 45‑day weekend sentence. What was our reaction? The collective will of Canada was shaken at its core. What is going on with our judges? What is going on with our justice system? It is no small wonder that Canadians and victims have a lack of confidence in our criminal justice system, when they see the highest court in this country ruling in the fashion that it did. We urged and pleaded with the government to come up and deal with this and use the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the charter has been enshrined in our charter since 1982. We would not have a charter but for section 33, but no, the government cannot do that. No, we now have to give judges that ultimate discretion to determine on their own whether a mandatory minimum penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and there are only a few guardrails. Condition number one is that the only two offences they cannot touch are murder and treason. Condition number two is that they have to impose a jail sentence. However, in that regard, there is nothing stopping judges across this country from imposing a one-day jail sentence or a time-served jail sentence. Under Bill C‑16, that would be a lawful sentence. I asked the justice minister repeatedly in this House and repeatedly at committee, if they wanted to bring back mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down, why can they not go further and include everything that was eliminated by Bill C‑5? Bill C‑5 is that disastrous piece of legislation that I warned David Lametti, then justice minister, would lead to adverse consequences. Now we have drug traffickers of fentanyl and other kinds of synthetic opiates, whom the judges across this country are calling the merchants of death, enjoying conditional sentences. They were once to be locked up for years, but now they can make an argument for a conditional sentence. Our justice minister shamelessly refused to bring back mandatory minimum penalties for all the drug offences and the majority of the weapons offences, including extortion with a firearm, which is raging across this country. For all those reasons, as indicated, I would encourage this entire House to vote against Bill C‑16.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Gurbux Saini

Liberal 9:40 p.m.

“You want to use the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. You say you'll take away religious freedom. That's why you voted yes on Bill C-21. It takes away people's rights.”

Larry Brock

Conservative 9:40 p.m.

“You're wrong. We said we'd use notwithstanding to overrule the Supreme Court on child abuse laws.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 9:40 p.m.

“Do you agree with the parts of this bill that do what your committee recommended? Did you try to convince other Conservatives to support it?”

Larry Brock

Conservative 9:40 p.m.

“I'm not sure if that was a question. I agree that most of the bill is good for victims. Take out one part and we'd vote for all the rest.”

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 9:40 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words for my friend. The other party wants mandatory minimums but also ways to go below them. A court said how minimums can work and this bill doesn't do that. When a bad guy goes free early, who will the other party blame - the court or the bill that lets this happen?”

Larry Brock

Conservative 9:45 p.m.

“I want judges to get blamed. I want the government to get blamed even more. This bill is a very bad tool. Every bad guy will say the minimum penalty is too mean. Every single one will try to use that.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 9:45 p.m.

“I want to change the subject. You don't trust judges. That's a bad look for you.”

Larry Brock

Conservative 9:45 p.m.

“You must support light sentences for child porn because you trust judges.”

Gabriel Hardy

Conservative 9:45 p.m.

“We're debating this late because the Liberals want to hide their bad bills. They won't let the Privacy Commissioner testify on a privacy bill. They're protecting criminals, not victims. Mandatory minimums are a promise. Breaking that promise will make crime worse. Activists in my riding say this is a real problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is 9:45 p.m. in the House right now. Most Canadians are putting their kids to bed, helping them fall asleep, finishing up their day, finishing their evening and getting ready to go to sleep. They are not watching the work of Parliament, and that is exactly what the Liberals want. They are very happy when people are not watching what is happening here, because what the Liberals are doing right now, this evening, is ramming through bills that should be worked on over the course of a year, in collaboration with the opposition parties, in order to finally get everyone's agreement. It is not about getting their bills passed. It is about getting bills passed that all Canadians can relate to. Instead of doing that, they worked very hard to cobble together a majority behind the scenes, only to end up falling behind and trying to save what they can by speeding things up and making MPs sit in Parliament until midnight to try to get their bills passed. If you want a concrete example of what is happening right now and how the government operates, then just look at what is happening at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with Bill C-22. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is a completely independent individual, an officer of Parliament, whose job is specifically to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, has asked to testify on Bill C-22, a bill that will require electronic service providers to retain everyone's metadata for one year so that the government can access it. We are talking about Internet browsing history, phone numbers, the devices we use, and the people we are with. The commissioner said that this bill falls squarely within her mandate, that she has genuine concerns about Canadians' privacy, and that she wanted to testify. Parliament has a procedure known as “unanimous consent”. Any member can request it. It means that we now all agree to do something. Conservative members have requested unanimous consent to have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada participate in reviewing the bill. The Liberals refused. How strange. So the Conservatives tried a different tack. They moved to suspend a study of this clause in order to study it a short time later so that the commissioner could participate. Once again, the Liberals voted against it. There were two attempts and two refusals. The Liberals are forcing the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into silence to essentially stop her from protecting the rights of Canadians, whom she protects every day. This is not a procedural matter. This is a government that fears transparency. We see that on many issues, and we are seeing it right now with the massive Bill C-16. It contains some good things, and I am going to talk about that, but it also contains a little poison pill that needs to be discussed. It is important to understand that, when we vote on a bill, we are not just voting on a single one of its lines. We are voting on the whole document. As I was saying, there are some good things about this bill. Making sure that the killing of an intimate partner is automatically classified as first-degree murder is a very good thing. Our colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is the one who suggested that. The bill seeks to ban deepfakes of intimate images. Once again, it was a Conservative member who suggested that. These are good things about the bill. However, unfortunately, this bill contains clause 63, and when it comes time to vote, we have to vote on the whole bill, including that provision. What does that provision say? As things now stand in Parliament, elected representatives have said that, if someone commits a serious crime, then they should go to prison for a predetermined minimum number of years with no exceptions. If a person commits a crime, then they know what they are facing. This is called a mandatory minimum sentence. It is the lower limit. It cannot get any lower than that. That is guaranteed. That is a promise that Parliament made to victims, that their perpetrators will have to face real consequences. However, clause 63, which the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-16, breaks that promise by saying that, if a judge considers the minimum sentence to be too harsh for a particular defendant, then the judge can disregard it and impose a lighter sentence. The Liberals want this new approach to apply to all or nearly all serious crimes in Canada, including aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm, human trafficking, shootings and weapons trafficking, just to name a few. Minimum sentences will not be required in any of those cases. Making minimum sentences optional for these crimes is really bad. Canadians are afraid, and rightly so. After a decade of Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assault has increased by 76%, and violent crime has increased by 55%. These are not just statistics on a page; these are families. These are women, these are children, these are victims. These are communities like mine, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, where people get up in the morning, work hard, raise their children and expect the government to protect them. Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing in response to rising violent crime across the country? They are introducing a bill that makes it easier for judges to hand down lighter sentences to people who commit serious crimes. Why are they doing all this? Do they want better incarceration statistics? Who are they doing this for? It is certainly not for victims and their families. Why are the Liberals always telling the House that criminals have rights, but never talking about victims' rights and what happens to them? It is an awful thing to behold. I am going to talk about what is actually happening in prisons right now. These are not theories. These are facts. Everything I am about to say is connected. Chapter one begins in 2019. With Bill C‑83, the Liberals ended the use of administrative segregation for the most violent inmates. Instead, these inmates, who are violent in prison, have comfortable living quarters and access to psychologists, nurses, even pet therapy and social support. How nice. All of this is funded by taxpayers. Chapter two begins in 2022. With Bill C‑5, the Liberals abolished minimum sentences for crimes involving firearms. Judges began imposing community service sentences on men and women who commit crimes involving illegal weapons, as well as gun smugglers and repeat offenders. One judge even wrote that he had to hold his nose after handing down the sentence he was obligated to impose. Now we are on chapter three. Bill C‑16 would basically make all remaining mandatory minimum sentences optional. At Donnacona, a prison located about 40 minutes from my riding, there have been four murders in less than a year. The wardens wrote to me. I speak to them regularly. They contact me. They say that there are illegal weapons coming in and that the number of violent criminals is going up. They talk about cleaning up blood and then having to go on with their day, pretending everything is normal. They tell me about the stress they are under every day. The correctional officers' union says that over 350 positions are vacant nationwide because officers are under so much stress at work these days that they are dropping like flies. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut back on the number of officers on the job, but that decision would heap even more pressure on the remaining officers. That is what is going on. Violent criminals are violent on the streets but also behind bars. Criminals who are violent when they are free are also violent when they are incarcerated, yet the Liberals want to reduce these people's sentences. What message does that send? I was sent here to the House by the citizens of Montmorency—Charlevoix, but not to rubber-stamp bills on autopilot, nor to remain silent while the government strips away the tools that protect my constituents and the entire population of Quebec. The federal government should excel at a few things and stay out of matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Canadian laws are certainly something citizens should be able to trust, and our work here in Ottawa is important in that regard. We should focus on those matters, the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. The real danger to citizens, however, is not bound by ideology. When Parliament establishes a mandatory minimum sentence, it makes a promise. Elected representatives—people accountable to voters who are not appointed for life, people whom voters have chosen to send here—made a promise to defend them in Parliament. When section 63 of the bill allows a judge to circumvent that promise, it weakens not only politics, but our entire image and the public's trust in our institutions. The important thing to understand is that it is not my point of view that matters, but that of the people. Their opinion counts. Perhaps it is time for the Liberals to start listening to the people. I am going to tell Canadians exactly what happened in committee. We moved amendment 22. We said that, at the very least, the safety valve, the escape hatch from mandatory minimum sentences, should not apply to someone who already has a criminal record. We moved amendment 25. We said that sexual offences against children and serious drug trafficking offences should be completely excluded from the lightest sentences. Children deserve to be protected. In moving amendments 25.2 and 25.3, we said that aggravated sexual assault and extortion should also not be eligible for this safety valve. We also moved amendment 29, which had nothing to do with sentences. We just said that when an offender is convicted of intimate partner violence and released on parole, the victim should be automatically notified. Every one of our amendments was defeated. I will stop there. Families in Montmorency—Charlevoix are watching what is happening. Quebeckers and Canadians are watching too. The government cannot make Canada safer by making criminals more comfortable.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 9:45 p.m.

“The judge said we can't have all our mandatory minimums. So fine, we'll add an exception to keep the rest. Why are you still complaining?”

Gabriel Hardy

Conservative 9:45 p.m.

“You say rights and freedoms, but I think you mean criminals' rights and freedoms. Your bill adds a loophole to let violent criminals go free. That's a terrible message. Why won't you punish criminals and protect victims like I want?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my speech. When these people talk about rights and freedoms, they are talking about the rights and freedoms of criminals. What about the rights of victims? Where are they? Victims are afraid, and the crime rate is rising. What message is being sent? We are leaving another loophole to allow violent criminals to get off scot-free and to give judges the option not to impose minimum sentences. No, that is not what our country needs. We need a strong justice system that makes it clear to criminals what consequences they will face if they commit a crime. The system must not give them free rein by suggesting that, in the end, they might be able to spend the rest of their lives at home while victims are forced to live in fear. That is a terrible message.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois 9:45 p.m.

“I want to dig up dirt on Liberal ties to a trucking lobby. I hope you Conservatives will help me.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Gabriel Hardy

Conservative 9:45 p.m.

“You want me to help you criticize the Liberals? I'll think about it. First I have to complain about how the Liberals are soft on crime.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what an odd question. We are talking about victims' rights. We are talking about laws being loosened. The Liberals want to loosen our laws so criminals do not have to face justice. I cannot commit myself today and answer my colleague's question on behalf of the entire Conservative Party. His motion was tabled yesterday, and it will be analyzed. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is very strict and works very hard. We want to make sure that ethics is a central consideration in every decision. If there is work to be done and it is important that we do it, we will be there. Holding the Liberals accountable for their decisions is our daily bread and butter.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Stephanie Kusie

Conservative 10:00 p.m.

“I'm fluffing up my colleague by asking his opinion on the government's handling of public safety and the justice system. I want to hear how being elected changed his perspective.”

Gabriel Hardy

Conservative 10:00 p.m.

“I'm frustrated that the Liberals spent more time finding a way to get a majority than working with the opposition. They were supposed to respect our vision, but instead they're just pushing their own agenda. Now we have to work late because the Liberals are trying to rush through bills they didn't work on when they should have.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the year since I joined the House, I have had the privilege of working alongside all my colleagues and with the Conservative Party. It is clear that, over the past year, the Liberals have spent more time working behind the scenes to cobble together a majority than trying to come to an agreement with the opposition. Yet that was the mandate given to them by the people, who elected a minority government. The Liberals had a mandate to work with the opposition to ensure that legislation serving the interests of all Canadians moves forward. It was not about imposing their vision, but rather respecting our vision. Every member of Parliament is sent by their constituents to get the job done here. That is not what the Liberals wanted to do. They did not spend their time working hard here; instead, they worked behind the scenes to cobble together a majority and then finally show up here, puff out their chests and claim that they are the ones in charge. Today, we are paying the price. We are here until midnight because the Liberals are trying to pull something off. They are trying to pass bills that they were unable to work on when it was actually time to do so.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:00 p.m.

“I want to look like I care about protecting women, but I'm really just setting up a complaint that this bill doesn't solve everything. I'll talk a lot without saying much.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:00 p.m.

“I'm talking a lot about a bill I support. I want more money for housing, shelters, and services for women who experience abuse. I want to make a normal crime really bad by calling it 'coercive control.' I say Quebec knows how to spend the money better than Canada. I hint the bill is not enough but I still support it.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Dominique O'Rourke

Liberal 10:10 p.m.

“I want to praise the person who criticized our bill. I want to hurry up and pass our bill. I want to know what she wants next.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Protecting Victims Act

Larry Brock

Larry Brock

Gurbux Saini

Larry Brock

Andréanne Larouche

Larry Brock

Jeff Kibble

Larry Brock

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Larry Brock

Gabriel Hardy

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Gabriel Hardy

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Gabriel Hardy

Stephanie Kusie

Gabriel Hardy

Andréanne Larouche

Andréanne Larouche

Dominique O'Rourke