Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite's commentary here tonight, but in terms of clarifications, there are significant inaccuracies that she put forth in her comments.
The member represented to this House that crimes and offences related to terrorism or advocating genocide are being hybridized in this bill. That is clearly not the case. I urge the member to actually look at the bill as it was structured and as it was amended at the standing committee.
I take issue with many things that she raised here in terms of our government's commitment to addressing crime and our government's commitment to addressing victims. I know of the member's role on the committee for the status women and I would put this to her: This bill addresses intimate partner violence. This bill includes enacting reverse onus at bail for repeat offenders. It broadens the definition of intimate partner violence to include dating partners and former partners and it increases the maximum sentence in cases involving intimate partner violence.
In light of her own advocacy for women in this Parliament, would the member agree that those amendments serve the victims for whom she seems to speak?