Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, these are difficult issues. I rise today to speak to Bill S-242, an act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence. It is a Senate bill introduced in December 2025 by Senator Fabian Manning of the Conservative Party of Canada, and it passed third reading in the Senate on February 24, 2026. In his speech introducing the bill at second reading, the senator highlighted the patience and tenacity of a woman from Newfoundland, Georgina McGrath, and talked about the correspondence he had exchanged with her over the following years. The woman told him about the ordeal she had suffered at the hands of her intimate partner. Of course, we commend Ms. McGrath’s contribution, her courage in speaking out publicly and her persistence in fighting the violence, domination and abuse suffered by victims of intimate partner violence. We encourage all victims in Quebec and throughout all Canadian provinces and territories to do the same. This is a huge societal challenge. That said, it is objectively safe to say that significant progress has been made in this regard. All political parties in the House have been working together constructively to implement transformative measures. No one doubts the senator’s sincere commitment, but he knew himself that Bill S-242 could not end abuse or eliminate intimate partner violence. He therefore obtained the support of the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and I commend her for introducing this bill. Basically, as the bill title suggests, the bill provides for the continuation of national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence. The Bloc Québécois has concerns about this bill, which does not have any real impact other than to interfere in one of areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces and territories. It is important to remember that the administration of justice, like social services, falls under the Government of Quebec’s jurisdiction. It is up to Quebec and the other provinces to implement their own strategies for eliminating this problem. Quebec has done its part in that regard. Quebec, as a distinct nation, and all of the Canadian provinces must have the autonomy and latitude to deal with these tragedies as they see fit. Each community in Quebec and Canada is unique and has its own specific needs. I will therefore continue my speech by first discussing in more detail who is doing what to address domestic violence. Then, I will talk about what is already being done in Quebec and Canada, and finally, I will address what still needs to be done. First, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is governments—the ones delivering services, hearing from community organizations, health care networks, police services and the justice system—that must determine what is best at a local level. This is a matter for Quebec and the provinces. It is no longer a secret that Ottawa must increase health transfers. Challenges and crises such as intimate partner violence, random acts of violent crime, substance abuse and homelessness continue to grow, often because of insufficient resources. Fortunately, it is not due to a lack of dedicated people on the ground. Every day, workers hold the social fabric together with sheer determination. My thoughts are with those who continue to work tirelessly in the community sector. Once again, Ottawa appears to be attempting to shape provincial public policy through a bill that, at first glance, seems harmless and whose objectives few would question in principle. The Bloc Québécois has vigorously defended victims’ rights and worked constructively during committee studies on intimate partner violence and coercive control, supporting every initiative aimed at strengthening protections for victims. We were the first to advocate treating the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder, curbing the violence associated with it and ensuring a rapid decline in such violence, including through the use of technological tools such as electronic bracelets that can help prevent unwanted, and sometimes fatal, encounters. As in many other areas where Quebec and the provinces work together, all governments can draw on one another’s best practices and most effective approaches to put an end to these tragedies and address their root causes through increased funding for psychosocial crisis centres, suicide prevention services and crisis intervention workshops. We must also recognize the vital contribution of the shelters that assist people in distress who must flee a violent partner. Everyone agrees that the time for discussion has passed. We must act quickly, and indeed very quickly. Instead of public money being squandered on planning meetings, it should be used directly on the front lines. The needs are urgent. Dozens of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women called for direct support and adequate, predictable funding. All the stakeholders who are called upon when a situation involving intimate partner violence escalates, whether they are patrol officers, mental health and social workers, shelters for people in distress, medical and psychiatric services, or the courts, agree that they need a lot more resources to help them handle these cases that can shatter lives or, in the worst-case scenario, claim innocent lives. If the Minister of Women and Gender Equality is willing to keep the momentum going and take action to prevent and address intimate partner violence, it would be a welcome addition to our efforts to tackle this urgent and deeply concerning challenge. Let me reiterate that the communities and frontline stakeholders know their needs best and that the Government of Quebec and the governments of the provinces and territories must remain in control of their own strategies in this area. Ottawa should play an important supporting role, rather than overseeing the work of the provinces. Furthermore, when it comes to aligning existing strategies and programs or consulting with partners on any constitutional or legal issues related to this initiative, including respect for jurisdictions, the Bloc Québécois strongly denounces these principles, because intervening in this way constitutes interference in the affairs of Quebec and the other provinces and territories. Second, as with other legislation, the government can request a review of existing laws relating to intimate partner violence and direct a committee to conduct a study on the issue. It is important to remember that Parliament has passed some very important laws to curb and deter this type of violence. Some examples are Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and the government’s Bill C-16, which received royal assent before the 2026 summer recess. Additionally, important bills were passed in the previous Parliament, including Bill C-332 on coercive control introduced by the former NDP member for Victoria, and Bill C-48, which was recognized for reversing the burden of proof for certain intimate partner violence offences, including when the accused has previously received a discharge for this type of offence. I would remind the House that Quebec already has comprehensive, effective infrastructure for supporting children and families. This bill will inevitably create another parallel federal bureaucratic process. As it stands, the bill introduces a structure that will let Ottawa impose its vision, priorities and conditions on the provinces, turning a seemingly innocuous bill into a tool for centralization. During this Parliament, however, some very important progress has been made to deter intimate partner violence and strengthen the sentences. The Bloc Québécois believes that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, along with the Standing Committee on the Status of Women or any other committee concerned by these issues, can at any time examine, study and measure the effects of these laws, determine their impact and success, and adjust them to suit needs at a frequency to be determined by the committees. For example, Bill C-225, known as Bailey’s law, strengthens the penalties for homicide, femicide and offences involving intimate partner violence, while Bill C-16 makes coercive or controlling conduct a separate offence and expands the definition of first degree murder in some situations involving femicide. These two laws function in a complementary way. In May, following a study initiated by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women also tabled a report entitled “Preventing Violence Against Women: Criminal Code Peace Bonds, Bail and Sentencing Reforms in Canada”, so we have already heard from many witnesses regarding peace bonds, better known as section 810 orders, in the context of intimate partner violence, and Senator Manning’s concerns were addressed by those witnesses. Throughout the study, the committee heard concerns about the effectiveness of these provisions. Witnesses called for reforms to Canada’s criminal justice system to better protect women and children from domestic violence and intimate partner violence. In releasing this report, including its 19 recommendations and two observations, the committee hopes to contribute to ongoing efforts to combat gender-based, domestic and intimate partner violence in Canada. I will have to touch briefly on the third point in just a few seconds. Another step the government could take is to increase health transfers, without conditions, as well as social transfers, to allow the provinces and Quebec to invest in their own priorities. These are measures that could be taken. As Canada prepares to criminalize coercive control, there are calls emphasizing the importance of laying the groundwork for this new legislation. I would like to say one last thing. In an interview with The Canadian Press, Annick Brazeau, president of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, explained that “femicide and homicide in a domestic violence setting often represents the tip of the iceberg”, the culmination of a long-standing pattern of violence. She noted, however, that “such tragedies sometimes happen without any prior violence”. We considered all of that, but the most important thing is to make sure there is not one victim more.
