Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Noon
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I won't even say anything. I'll take it.
As my dad used to say, “Quit while you're ahead.” I'll do just that.
Noon
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I'd ask that the question be put right now before they change their mind.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We're on NDP-3.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Noon
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I was more worried that the opposition might change their minds when they found out we were supporting it.
Noon
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I have to say that sometimes it does cause us to second-guess ourselves, but I do thank Mr. Goguen for his comments, and taking into account the relevant circumstances of the person does go into the elements of the person's state of mind and other things, including something to do with perception.
Noon
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've added this at the suggestion of the CBA. We did have some discussion about gender, and you can't just assume, because someone's one gender or another, that they're bigger or smaller or more or less capable. Size doesn't necessarily matter either. You could be a big character with disabilities or an inability to respond. The addition of physical capability seems to me to be aiming at what the section was trying to achieve by saying that it has to take into account the person's circumstances. If size, age, and gender are important, then the physical capabilities certainly would be too.
I'll leave it at that.
Noon
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
We agree with this. I think the wording of it is good: “physical capabilities.” As you have mentioned, Mr. Harris, you could be a small person with a black belt in karate or something.
Noon
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
You may have a physical capability that the other person doesn't have, one that isn't necessarily covered just by the wording of “size”, for instance. It adds to a non-exhaustive list of the circumstances for the court to take into account. That seems reasonable, and when you put it together with the other factors that are enunciated and the nature and proportionality of the person's response to that threat, it makes a lot of sense.
We're supportive of this amendment.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
I should add that Ms. Boivin's father is a very wise man.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you. Seeing no other interventions, shall the amendment NDP-4 pass?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on NDP-5.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We're looking at clause 2, line 11, page 2. Proposed paragraph 34(2)(f) states:
the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
The Canadian Bar Association suggested that “relationship” is potentially narrow, because it could be something that is not a relationship but in fact is an encounter of once or twice that gives rise to the perception of a threat or prior use of a threat. They suggested that “relationship” is a bit too specific, and they suggested replacing that word with “interaction or communication between the parties to the...” Interaction would obviously include a relationship, but a relationship might not include a minor interaction.
That's the best way of putting it succinctly. I'm prepared to hear what others might have to say about that.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
The wording of the proposed amendment seems to broaden the effect, I guess. This was intended to rectify and take into account the battered woman situation, which is something we're very mindful of.
We're wondering if the wording, if it's that broad, might detract from the focus. It's difficult to predict if it would have any effect in drawing the courts' attention to the battered woman situation, which is really the primary reason for this part. I'd actually like to toss this to the experts and get their comments on it.
We did want to focus on the battered woman syndrome in this situation.