Evidence of meeting #89 for Status of Women in the 44th 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chelsea Moore  Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Julia Nicol  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Dancella Boyi  Legislative Clerk

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

Good evening, everybody. It's Anita's birthday, so we'll be celebrating that. There's cake at the back.

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Everybody should understand, with the Zoom application, to just please put up your hand.

If I'm totally ignoring you—Emmanuella knows what this is like—just let me know. Say, “Karen, I need to hear from you.” For those in the room, just put up your hand and we'll make sure that we take down a list.

Interpretation, of course, is available. We've all used that before.

Today we have different people in the room, so for those who are on Zoom, it looks a bit different. We have Chelsea Moore here, and Julia Nicol. We also have some legislative clerks who are going to be helping us with this legislation.

We also have a new clerk, so he's going to be getting used to how it is to work with me.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.

When ready to start, we're going to go clause by clause. There have been a lot of different clause-by-clauses that we have done in the past in other committees, but this one is a little different. A lot of times we don't look at the justice bills.

I'm going to remind everybody that we're going to take it slowly. I think the most important thing is that we get this right. At the end of the day, this is all about the victims and ensuring that we get this right.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As members already know, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package or in the bill. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. As Stephanie noted, we need them in both official languages so that we can circulate them around to everyone.

The Chair will move slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given a number. Everybody has the amendment. At the top corner, for instance, you will see a G-1, and that stands for Government-1. In your list and in the package, on the right-hand side you will see the number that we're referring to.

The amendment will then be open for debate. During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Everybody has all of their information. You should have the bill, plus everybody should have the bill in PDF format. You'll see the line numbers on that.

I just want to make sure that everybody has a PDF format of the bill.

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

(On clause 1)

Super-duper. We're good to go. Let's get rolling here.

The chair calls clause 1 and we have amendment G-1.

Ms. Sonia, would you like to move it?

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

Yes, Madam Chair. It's that Bill S-205, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 17 on page 1 with the following:

1(1) Paragraph 515(6)(b.1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by

and by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:

(2) The Act is amended by adding the following

If you want me to give the explanation, it's to remove measures that would require the court to ask whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making an order for bail. That's why we are moving that.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

In bringing it to the committee, what you're looking at is under the Criminal Code, paragraph (b.1) of subsection 515(6). You're taking out that entire part of the bill from clause 1, all the way down to where subclause 1(3) begins.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

Yes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

You're taking out proposed subsection 515(3.1), “Consulting intimate partner”, and proposed paragraph 515(4)(e.1).

Is there any discussion on that? It looks at removing the first two proposed subsections.

Go ahead, Andréanne.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Chair, I want to make sure that I understand one of the amendments. I'd like you to repeat the proposed changes.

What is the reason for removing the reference to “justice” in point (2), I believe?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

I'm going to make a quick note.

We're looking at the part right here. There may have been an interpretation issue there, because I think the word I heard wasn't here specifically in the bill.

What we're looking at is this clause here. It would be under “Criminal Code”. They are the subclauses that take you straight from “Criminal Code” down to the beginning of subclause 1(3).

Sonia, I'll pass the floor over to you for discussion as to Andréanne's question.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

Madam Chair, can she explain...?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

She was just wondering why you want that part removed.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

I talked about that. Those measures would add electronic monitoring to the list of bail condition options for all crimes. Some courts might interpret this as shifting the onus onto prosecutors. This could cause major delays to bail, including when prosecutors cannot contact victims, thus threatening public safety. Victim services is [Inaudible—Editor] to take safety into consideration, and must already take safety considerations of victims into account in bail decisions.

This will also disproportionately impact indigenous, Black and racialized people.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

I'm just going to let you know, because I did ask for this to be brought up.... Thank you very much. I'll just let you know that if G-1 is adopted, it means that NDP-1 cannot be moved, due to the line conflict.

I always like to bring this up to everybody, to inform you of some of the conflicts. If G-1 is moved and adopted, then NDP-1 cannot be moved, because there's a line conflict.

This is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.

Right now, as I said, we are looking at G-1 only. We're not going to be talking about NDP-1, but I just want you to have in mind that if G-1 is voted upon and adopted, NDP-1 cannot be looked at.

I do have a question for you, Sonia. It would be taking the person who is the victim, not having to ask their.... Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong. By moving this, it's not getting the consultation with the victim, or are you saying the victim is being consulted already? Can you share?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

Victims are already consulted. Why I am saying that is that it impacts more disproportionately Black and racialized people.

The other point, Madam Chair, is that Bill C-233 considers intimate partner violence as a crime for which electronic monitoring should be especially considered, if we consider it for all crimes.

Judges do not get the nudge to treat IPV with extreme care. That was the other point I wanted to add.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

I have Anna followed by Andréanne.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm a little confused. If I read this correctly, it's going to read “the Criminal Code is replaced by”. Is that what we're changing? Are we taking out, “Act is amended by adding the following”?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

We're taking out all of this part right here. That entire section is removed.

That “Consulting intimate partner” part is the key part that would be removed in the clause she's referring to.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

It's all the way down to 1(3).

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

That's correct.

Do you have another comment before I move on?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

No.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

We have Andréanne followed by Anita, followed by Leslyn, followed by Marc.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Chair, you said that if we adopt amendment G‑1, we can't vote on amendment NDP‑1.

Personally, I would prioritize amendment G‑1 over amendment NDP‑1.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

Thanks very much.

It's a little different from a study with the recommendation, but I really do appreciate that insight.

Are there any further comments?

I'm looking at Anita, Leslyn and Marc.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Thanks, Madam Chair.

To answer Anna's question, we're removing that proposed subsection because right now the courts do have to take into consideration safety, and it's really victim services that does the communicating. This would make it the prosecutor who would have to communicate with the victim. In that case, if they can't reach the victim, it could lead to very long delays, so it's a major change, and that's why we're putting forward this amendment.

Thank you.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

Go ahead, Leslyn.