Status of Women Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you.

I will allow Michelle to take the floor. We will pass it over to the officials, but she does have the floor.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

This question, through you, Madam Chair, is actually for Ms. Sidhu. It is a question on behalf of the victims. It's a question on behalf of the family who has testified before us, who asked that this bill not be amended. That's what I'm trying to say. That's why I'm saying this is relevant. I'm trying to understand, because I've seen the work that we've done in FEWO. I've seen what we've done with Keira's law. Why are you gutting this bill and taking out victims' rights, victim consultation and wording around “intimate partner”, when we have testimony from the victims, who are asking for it not to be amended?

That is my question, through you, Madam Chair. Why are there these very rigorous amendments that change the whole heart of the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay, I will go through the list. We have Leah, Marc, Emmanuella and Dominique. If you're not on that list and you're supposed to be on that, please let me know. That's who I have still on this list.

Leah, we'll start with you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I liked it when you called me “Gazan”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Let's do a do-over.

We have done really great work in this committee. I have to say, out of everything in the House of Commons, what I've enjoyed most is this commtitee, because we know how to work through things and get things done. I think it's been of benefit to voices that are historically marginalized in this place, and that's women and diverse-gendered folks. They really have no place in here, especially with intersectionalities of women like me, so this gives me place and purpose in this very misogynistic institution. I want to start by saying that.

I want to point out a couple of things. One, I think “intimate partner” is still included. If you look at part (a) in G-3, proposed subsection 810.03(1), it says:

Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to the intimate partner

I don't think it's taking out the voices. It's looking at research in domestic violence where people who are experiencing domestic violence are often, for whatever reason, too afraid to come forward. We will be doing a study on coersive control, and I'm sure that will be a centerpiece of the study on coersive control, which has massive implications that go beyond physical abuse. The mental and psychological abuse is a form of control and power, which will limit a victim's ability to feel like they can come forward from fear.

I think it actually supports getting at some of the roots of gender-based violence by really ensuring that we can save lives through this bill. I know we're bringing up former testimony, but I was very touched by the senator when.... This comes from his daughter's personal experience, who I suspect maybe felt like it wasn't safe for her to come forward, for whatever reason. Whether we think it's legitimate or not, we know through research and just lived experience that women often will not come forward.

I think this change will save lives, in fact, when you say “any”. It will help families support a member, who they see is in an obviously abusive situation, in a way that could potentially save their life.

I don't think that the senator would not approve of making amendments to a bill that, in honour of his daughter, probably would have provided her with more safety.

I really support this amendment.

The other thing is that we know that in cases of suspected child abuse, we all have a legal obligation to report such abuse. We are legally obligated, so I don't think this amendment moves away from our current legal obligations, which are to report any suspected abuse of children.

That's where I'm at with it, knowing that everybody around the committee table has the best intentions to lift up the voices of victims. I want to acknowledge that. I don't think there's anything malicious in the discussion that's happening here, but I do think if we're going to make a better bill and base it on research and base it on the facts, then I have to support this amendment, because I know it will save lives.

I don't have a problem with (d), because it's already required of me through law.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

I have Marc, Emmanuella and Dominique, and then I'm going to bug Chelsea and Julia to just sum things up for us as well, unless there are other questions.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yes, this is a very difficult process in the testimony we hear, and I just wanted to say, from some of the witnesses we've heard, that it's not that we're gutting the bill, Michelle. We're trying to expand it and trying to improve it. We've heard other witnesses say that there was some tweaking and there were some little concerns.

As Leah mentioned, when we look at other persons—children, family—I think that's an improvement. Previously, we talked about victim services versus the prosecutor. There's a process. The bill focused on the prosecutor. We focused on the victim services in the courts.

I'll be supporting this amendment.

“Intimate partner” in this amendment is mentioned four times, in amending proposed subsection 810.03(1), proposed subsection 810.03(7), proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(e) and proposed subsection 810.03(9).

On the change in proposed subsection 810.03(1) to “another person”, I'll ask the.... Well, the chair already said that we'll turn it over to the officials, but again, in adding “another person”, I thought there was some confusion earlier, some comments. I think it's a good thing to be adding “another person”, not just the individual, the victim, because the children, the family and.... I think that's okay, and it doesn't.... It's so that we get this passed as soon as possible with some of these, which seem to be improving the bill, which I think is what everyone around this table wants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I have Emmanuella and Dom.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to clarify, because in saying that we heard from witnesses who want this bill unchanged, we ignore the fact that almost half of the testimony was hearing witnesses talk about how change to this bill is absolutely needed before we allow it go to forward, and those were people who worked with under-represented groups, with Black women and indigenous women and women who are overrepresented in prisons. I think it's important that we are making these changes.

Now, going back to the actual amendment on the floor, we have been told by the legal team here that this doesn't exclude victims of IPV, so it's not that the victims themselves cannot come forward and ask for this. It's that we're increasing the chances that they will actually get a peace bond because more than just one person can go and ask for it. It's anybody who may want to go and speak on behalf of the victim if the victim is feeling afraid of doing so herself.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thanks so much, Emmanuella.

I'm going to pass it over to Chelsea and Julia.

Just with G-3, could you give us a kind of summary of the impacts of G-3, because I know there's lot of...? Not just proposed section 810.03, but if you could summarize and round it all up, how this would actually be better or worse or whatever it may be, could you provide your thoughts?

[Julia Nicol]

Sure.

The amendments proposed in G-3 are technical in nature, to make the new peace bond in line with the language used in other peace bonds that already exist. That consistency helps in terms of interpreting when we get before the courts by using similar or the same language. Obviously, as has been previously discussed, it would allow a police officer, for example, to lay the information or bring the application.

Also, several of the provisions relate to renumbering. Do you want me to go through all of it, because there's quite a lot, or is that sufficient?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

On renumbering, that's okay.

[Julia Nicol]

Also, it would remove, for example, the reference to a “timely” order. The challenge with that is that it's not a defined term and there's significant variability, depending on the Canadian jurisdiction in which a peace bond is being sought, in terms of how long it takes, so it might be challenging in terms of implementation. It's not included, but obviously I think the courts are aware that time is a consideration in this. It's an ongoing challenge in courts.

The other thing is that if we're varying conditions, as with some of the other peace bonds, it allows the intimate partner or the Attorney General, if the informant is not the intimate partner, to ask for the conditions to be varied. That could be important, for example, if you have a new custody arrangement and there's a requirement that you need to communicate over transfer of the kids and that sort of thing. The benefit of that is that you can align and adjust as required, depending on the situation of the family.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Are there any comments?

Seeing none, shall G-3 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

G-4 is number 12748365. I'm going to pass it over to Sonia for interpretation or discussion.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, we are replacing the word “informant” with “parties” in proposed subsections 810.03(2), 810.03(7), 810.03(9), and 810.03(13). This is just for consistency with other subsections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

This is going to be quite confusing. Although I have it all marked out in my book, it is quite confusing, so I will just let you know where you will find some of these.

I believe G-4 impacts “Appearances”, proposed subsection 810.03(2), on page 2. G-4 also has an impact on “Conditions in recognizance”, proposed subsection 810.03(7). Those are the only two things I think it impacts.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

May I, Madam Chair?

Can Ms. Sidhu explain it again? I didn't understand anything she said, and we didn't have the interpretation.

According to the paper copy we have of G‑4, the amendment is in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I believe it's in French as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You should have both.

This is the English version only, sorry. It reads, “That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following”.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Very good. My apologies.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

When I came to this committee, I understood we were doing clause-by-clause. There were a lot of clauses in G-3 that we didn't even touch on, and you just voted on it. There were a whole host of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We voted on G-3, not the clause. We just did G-3, which carried. We then go through the entire thing. When it's an actual clause, once the clause is finished, we'll go, “Does the clause carry?” We're just in the preliminary work right now.

Right now, we take the amendments as they come in. They all get numbered accordingly to where they sit in here. We go clause by clause, but we have to do amendment by amendment. We can then get into clause-by-clause, but we're amending what we need to, because they are so consequential on other pieces.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Right, but we dealt with clause 1 in G-3. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

No, we dealt with G-3, and it passed.