“I support parts of this bill that protect victims of domestic abuse. But I think judges should look at many factors together, not just one, to decide if someone was controlling their partner. The Liberals rejected our change to do this, and I want to know why.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House. I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence. However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered. The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole. That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.”

“I want to know why the government refused to set clear rules for peace bonds. Clear rules would help protect victims and prevent criminal harassment.”

“Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague. Why did the Liberals refuse to consider objective criteria when it comes to peace bonds? It would have been one way to better prevent criminal harassment. This is an important issue, particularly for victims.”

“Victims' rights groups asked for this bill, but Conservatives are finding reasons to oppose it. They keep asking for mandatory minimum prison sentences instead. I want to know if my colleague has any real data showing that harsher sentences work better than helping offenders change.”

“Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that. That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence. I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders. Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?”