Status of Women Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

The fact is, the only thing we can do now is ask for UC. I promise you, in looking around this room, that it's not happening.

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

Well, I could bring a point of order to raise these concerns.

[An hon. member]

It's not a point of order.

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

It is a point of order. We are dealing with the order of how this is put on the record. The record is very important. The order is very important to the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I have been advised that this would not be a point of order.

I hear what you're saying, but I also know that I did call out all of those lines, and I did bring them to everybody's attention in this room prior to inviting Ms. Nichol and Ms. Moore to discuss because, as I said, it impacts more than just section 810.03. It impacts this section, this section and this section.

When I read it out, I showed everybody my pages, because—

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

But there are errors. There are actually errors. We are sitting in this room and we are putting forth, voting on, things that are erroneous that will make us look incompetent. There are actual errors.

If you look at proposed subsection 810.03(8) in G-3, deleting the reference to subsection 810.03(9) and putting in a reference to proposed subsection 810.03(7), when one deals with bail terms and the other with firearms, is completely erroneous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

The firearms section, just to let you know, I do not believe is in this part of the section, because that is one thing—

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

Right, but if you look at proposed subsection 810.03(8) in G-3, it refers to a provincial court judge adding “a condition described in subsection (9)”, and they are changing it from “subsection (9)” to “subsection (7)”. It originally dealt with firearms, and they're changing it to bail.

It completely changes the legislation. We are legislators, and this is very important. It is a point of order. This goes to the gravity of our jobs as legislators. We should not be just passing things through. This is what we do here. This is essentially what we do here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much, everybody.

I have points of order coming through.

I am just going to suspend so that I can speak with the clerk.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We're “unsuspended”.

I would like to start with Chelsea and Julia, so we can move forward. I think it's important.

Can you share with everybody the renumbering that will be implemented because of G-3? I know G-3 has that change, and we're all saying, “It's okay.” However, as we go through it, some of those are seven or eight letters, I know. I want to provide them.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Did we already vote on those?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

No. However, we'll know the impact from those other ones when we come to the rest. It's so we know how the.... The clause numbers have moved and that will cause problems.

I want them to let everybody know how the clause numbers have moved.

Go ahead, please.

[Julia Nicol]

To start out, G-3 is amending only clause 2. If there are other amendments in other clauses caused by these amendments, those will be brought, from my understanding, through other motions. It doesn't mean differences will remain.

One renumbering that is probably the most helpful is.... G-3 removes proposed subsection 810.03(5) and proposed subsection 810.03(8). Proposed subsection 810.03(5) is about the timeliness of the order, and proposed subsection 810.03(8) is about the submissions. Once those are removed, all the other numbering is affected.

Because of that, each of them changes. Once proposed subsection 810.03(5) is removed, proposed subsection 810.03(6) becomes proposed subsection 810.03(5), and proposed subsection 810.03(7) becomes proposed subsection 810.03(6). Proposed subsection 810.03(8) is removed, which is on page 4. This then means that proposed subsection 810.03(9) becomes proposed subsection 810.03(7), because now there are two subsections that have been removed. It's the same for the others, until proposed subsection 810.03(14), which becomes proposed subsection 810.03(12). That is just within clause 2.

Does that clarify?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much. Excellent.

There was a list. We have Serré, Gazan, and then Lambropoulos. That's the list we have here.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Are we on G-4?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Yes, it's G-4.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I think G-4 is simple. I know this is a tad.... It was a good debate, so that's good.

As Sonia mentioned, the G-4 amendment is only about replacing the word “informant”. You're taking out “the informant and the person who is the subject of the information” and replacing it with “the parties”. I think that's a more inclusive term. It would affect proposed subsection 810.03(2), proposed subsection 810.03(7), proposed subsection 810.03(9) and proposed subsection 810.03(13).

As Sonia mentioned, it's a terminology change. I think it's pretty straightforward. Hopefully, we just move on to the next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay. Fantastic.

Thank you so much.

We'll move to Leah, and then Emmanuella, Andréanne, Michelle and Dr. Lewis.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think it goes back to what I was talking about before, with “any”, so I do.... Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay. That's good.

Andréanne.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I'd like some clarification as to the effect G‑4 would have. The English and French versions seem to match up. I would just like more information on what effect it would have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'll pass it over to our officials.

Go ahead.

[Julia Nicol]

First, G‑4 would provide greater consistency between the English and French versions. Second, the wording being proposed in G‑4 would match the language that appears in other peace bond provisions. The change has more to do with consistency, so there isn't a big impact. It still applies to the same people, the informant and the defendant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

Andréanne, is there any follow-up on that? No. Okay.

Michelle, go ahead.

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

I'm going to have to pass, because I don't even remember what I was going to say.

Thank you.