Thank you very much for the question.
First of all, there's a reason why the application period for orders under sections 515 and 810 of the Criminal Code was extended to two years. That's because, especially for section 515 orders, trials often take from one to three years. If the order is only enforced for one year, attackers will go back to harass their victims and force them to drop their complaint. That's why there were longer timelines, to make sure that victims were protected at least until the trials.
Why was there a longer sentence for breach of an undertaking made under section 810? That's because the Université de Montréal conducted a study in Quebec on compliance with commitments made under section 810, and it found that 50% of men didn't comply with conditions imposed by the courts. If there are no longer any consequences for men who approach their victims when they're under a no-contact order, aggressors will know about it. We thought it was important that this bill include a minimum number of consequences for individuals who fail to comply with the conditions imposed by the courts.
And then, you also took out the section of the bill that prohibited criminals from using social networks, their main tool for harassing victims, particularly Facebook. You targeted the wrong thing by removing that from the bill, when it allowed victims to feel confident, because we gave them tools.
You also deleted the part of the bill that required that victims be consulted when an order was issued under section 515, to find out what form of protection they wanted. I didn't understand the reasoning behind your decision to remove things that were often meant to deal with the consequence of harassment and intimidation of victims.