Evidence of meeting #91 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I'm actually just asking about the logistics. The subamendment, if I understand correctly, was put forth by Ms. Lewis because the Liberals removed the words “intimate partner” and replaced them with “persons”. Is that correct?
I do find it a little convoluted the way it's written, so I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, literally and figuratively here.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I'm looking at this because I don't think that's exactly how it rolled out.
It was in proposed section 810.03 where they switched “a person” to “any person” and removed “intimate partner”. The “intimate partner” was replaced with “another person”.
Looking at that, that's where it comes to the peace bonds, in proposed section 810.03. It is “any person” rather than “a person” in that one.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
If I can clarify, I think what that's talking about is any person other than.... You don't have to be the victim in order to request a peace bond.
This is opening it up. If you're the child of someone who's experiencing intimate partner violence, you can go get a peace bond, or if you're a neighbour or a good friend. It's not saying you have to be the victim in order to go for the peace bond. That's the intent of this motion.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
You would still be a victim in the sense that you are still living in fear of the attacker.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
It just means you don't necessarily come forward yourself.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Give me one moment. I'm just looking at this specifically because, as we're going through this, I believe what you're referring to might be clause 1 where those things were changed. That was under “Consulting intimate partner”. That was clause 1, which has already been approved. That, specifically, is where the “intimate partner” was removed. That was proposed paragraph 515(6)(b.1). We're replacing “a person” with “any person”.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I think what we're doing here.... Obviously, sitting on this side, we were very upset. I was personally very upset that the victim consultation was removed from this bill. It's the heart of the bill, the victim consultation, which we heard in testimony from Ms. Diane Tremblay as well.
I guess what I'm telling my Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues here today is that Ms. Lewis's subamendment is trying to help a little with this damage control because they've removed “intimate partner” and they've removed victim consultation from this bill.
I just wanted to have clarification. That's why I think it's not a barrier. I think it's really important to support this subamendment, if that makes sense to everyone here.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Perhaps, Chelsea and Julia, you can share.
Would changing this have an impact, the “intimate partner” that was removed in clause 1? Is there a correlation between the language used in clause 1 and clause 2?
3:50 p.m.
Chelsea Moore Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think they're two separate issues. Clause 1 dealt with the bail provisions of the code, and clause 2 really gets into the peace bond regime, which is an entirely different regime.
Part of the confusion might be that some of the wording in section 810 was suggested to be amended by G-3, which would allow a police officer to bring the information on the intimate partner's behalf. Perhaps there's some confusion with how the rewording happened with the term “intimate partner” in that provision.
No, clause 2 is distinct from clause 1. They wouldn't have an impact on each other since they're two different regimes.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The change in G-3 does not stop an intimate partner from requesting a peace bond directly. It just gives them the option, if they are scared, for example, to go through a police officer. It's reflecting the language in the other peace bonds, where often it may be a police officer who is bringing the claim and not necessarily the individual needing the protection, if that helps.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Thank you for that clarification.
I guess where I'm struggling with this is that we have these cities—my city, Peterborough, is one of them—that have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic, a crisis. I'm not sure why we would want to remove that word. Maybe if we added “and persons”.... However, if we remove “intimate partner”, what message are we sending when this is an epidemic in the country, in each city?
That's my concern with the removal of this word.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't know if it helps, but in paragraph (a) of G-3, “intimate partner” is still there. Any person can now relay the information or apply for the peace bond, but if you look further down, that person has to fear on reasonable grounds that somebody is going to cause a personal injury to the intimate partner's child or their own child. The “intimate partner” is still in there, and it would be a requirement to get a peace bond. The concern is for the safety of an intimate partner or the children.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Michelle, I hear you, and I understand, because as we're going through this bill, we understand the importance of it.
We're looking at page 2 of the bill, under “Fear of domestic violence”. Section 810.03, in the original bill, says:
A person who fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner may lay an information before a provincial court judge.
What we're seeing from this amendment is the word “a” turned into “any”; the words “intimate partner” turned into “another person”, and “a child of that intimate partner” changed to “a child of the other person's intimate partner”. The words “intimate partner” are not there. Those have been removed, and “another person” has been put in.
Continuing with that, I think that's where we're at. Those are some of the amendments.
Andréanne, we're going to you, and then to Leah.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Chair, we already dealt with the motion to replace the wording “intimate partner” with “a person” or “any person” at the last meeting. We already made a decision on that. Am I mistaken?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
That was a different clause, but yes, “intimate partner” would be removed because of this being from clause 1.
I'm going to ask Dancella to explain.
3:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Right now, we are dealing with amendment G‑3. Ms. Lewis has proposed a subamendment—
3:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
No, it's a subamendment to G‑3. The subamendment doesn't have a code, but the reference number is 12766880. My colleague will show you the text of the subamendment in a moment.
The current debate pertains to Ms. Lewis's subamendment, which seeks to amend G‑3. That is still being debated.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
If I understand correctly, the subamendment would basically replace “fears” with “believes”. Do I have that right?
3:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
No, CPC‑1 will be proposed later if necessary to ensure that the bill is consistent.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
It's basically the same thing, though. It flows from Ms. Lewis's subamendment.