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.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
We will go to the experts, and then I know Dr. Lewis and Leah both have comments.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The provisions in the bill, as drafted right now, allow for the peace bond, the new peace bond for intimate partner violence, to be imposed for a duration of two years in any case where the court finds that there's a reasonable fear of domestic violence, or for three years if the court makes the determination and the defendant also has a prior conviction for intimate partner violence.
Currently in the Criminal Code, the peace bond that victims typically go to for intimate partner violence is the regular section 810 peace bond, which is for 12 months only and doesn't have a provision that would allow it to be extended at all.
There are five other existing specialized peace bonds in the code: for terrorism, for organized crime, for forced marriage, for serious personal injury offences and for sexual offences against a minor. All start at 12 months, like the section 810 peace bond, and they can be extended to two years where there's a prior conviction for a similar offence. The exception is the one for terrorism, which can be extended to five years. For example, for a serious personal injury offence, the peace bond can only be extended up to two years where there's a prior conviction for similar conduct. A serious personal injury offence is an offence that's more serious than the personal injury offence that's the subject matter of this bill.
The policy surrounding specific peace bond durations—just by way of background—has been developed by the courts while being mindful of the seriousness of the specific conduct triggering the peace bond and while also being mindful of the purpose of the peace bond regime, which is to prevent offending in minimally impairing ways since no actual offence has taken place yet. I just want to remind you that while the person is subject to the peace bond, the person could have conditions to attend treatment, for example, or to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. When we're talking about the duration of the peace bond, we're really talking about how long the person needs to be subject to some of these conditions.
I think—just to summarize the changes—that the changes in amendment G-5 would ensure that the current durations are in line with the durations for other, even more serious peace bonds in the code and also take into account the principles underlying the peace bond regime that have been set out by the courts.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Thank you very much for that.
On the list we have Leslyn, Leah and then Marc.
December 11th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Yes, section 810 is usually the normal peace bond. Admittedly, 12 months is.... I've never seen it. The legislation does contemplate something that is outside of the norm of section 810, which is the peace bond section that would ordinarily be invoked for these types of incidents.
However, I think it's important for us to understand why the drafter contemplated an extra time. I'm going to refer to my esteemed colleague Ms. Gazan, who eloquently stated that laws for children have different reporting or duty-to-report requirements. That has been modified. I'm not trying to infantilize women and put them in the same category as children, but when we're dealing with intimate partners, I would like it, perhaps, if the experts could explain to us why this would not be an exception outside of the regular section 810 peace bond. I'm sure that the drafter of the legislation would have known what the normal course of the peace bond would be.
Could the experts just explain the difference? These individuals wouldn't have been convicted of an offence as of yet when this is invoked. Is that correct? I just want clarification.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I'm going to pass it over to Chelsea, so that she can answer specifically these questions.
Go ahead.
5:20 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, no criminal offence has been committed in the peace bond context. If someone was actually convicted of an offence, a personal injury offence towards an intimate partner, that person would be looking at possibly a much longer sentence—possibly 10 years—depending on the context. However, here there has been no offence, and the purpose of the peace bond is to prevent an offence from possibly occurring.
The difference with the section 810 peace bond.... What this bill would add is that it would allow the peace bond to be extended longer than the regular section 810 peace bond. The regular section 810 peace bond right now doesn't allow for an extension of the peace bond.
The other thing that this bill would add, from my assessment of reading it, is that there would be more curated conditions that could be imposed that relate to domestic violence, such as treatment for domestic violence, counselling, electronic monitoring, and things like that, which are more connected to domestic violence. Therefore, there are more curated conditions with this new peace bond.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I have another question. Sometimes the accused voluntarily enters into a peace bond, and it's a means of resolving the conflict in a situation where there's no offence on the books. A peace bond is basically a bond of the person to enter into peace with the other individual, yet we're imposing all of these conditions.
Could that not be a deprivation of, say, section 7 charter rights and different aspects of the charter, because there's absolutely no requirement for that person to submit to counselling and all of these requirements that could be attached to that? That's my question.
5:25 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The existing peace bonds in the code, which have a duration of 12 months with the possibility of extension if there's a prior conviction, have been upheld as constitutional. Therefore, it does provide some comfort in terms of how the peace bond regime is compatible with the charter.
It's difficult to speculate on what courts would find if there were, for example, an indeterminate peace bond. How the courts would handle that under the charter is difficult to say, but all I can say right now is that the existing regime has been found to be consistent with the charter, and this motion would ensure that what's being proposed here is consistent with that existing regime as well.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I'm sorry. Not to belabour this, but with the existing regime, usually conditions are imposed after a finding of guilt or some terms. I do know that sometimes they work in some good behaviour conditions within the peace bond, but this seems to be going a little bit beyond that. I'm just concerned about whether or not this could even stand up in a court under the liberty provisions of the charter.
5:25 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In the peace bond context, there's no finding of guilt, but as you say, sometimes people go for a peace bond midway through trial. They realize that maybe the case isn't strong enough, so they decide to settle on a peace bond arrangement. There is no finding of guilt, though. There's no criminal offence that's been acknowledged when a peace bond is signed. There's a determination that the person applying for the peace bond has a fear that an offence might be committed, but there's no offence that's been acknowledged.
In terms of the conditions that are imposed under a peace bond, there's this provision at the very beginning, in the paragraph at the top, before the conditions, that says the judge must ensure that the conditions that are imposed are reasonable and desirable, either to ensure the good conduct of the defendant or to secure the safety and security of the informant. That guides the judge in ensuring that the conditions that are imposed are reasonable and in line with the jurisprudence that's been developed. It's like a check on ensuring that the conditions imposed wouldn't breach the charter or other rules developed in the common law.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
It's 5:29, lady, but go ahead and get your question in there. Make every minute count.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have just one question. I know we're talking about the peace bond. That's consistent with the current laws on peace bonds. Is that right? Okay, so there's consistency.
The other point, I think, in terms of bringing up testimony, was with NWAC. They suggested, multiple times, alternatives to justice, like restorative justice and measures that are culturally appropriate. That's partly because we know that penitentiaries, which I have done some work on, are quite violent and anti-social and really don't do a good job of fixing individuals, particularly those who are dealing with violent behaviour. They spoke about alternative forms of justice rather than incarceration.
I heard that loud and clear from a lot of the witness testimony. I don't think it's about not punishing; it's about looking at alternative forms of justice. Restorative justice is something that has actually been around for a long time in Manitoba and has been very effective, particularly with indigenous people, looking at root issues like intergenerational or first-hand impacts of colonization.
I know we're all trying to make things better for women and diverse-gendered people, and I don't think anybody around this table is different on that. I think we've demonstrated that over and over again. Even though we're in different parties and have different angles, I know we have a common goal.
That's my perspective on it. It's not that I think we should not take it seriously. It's just that I have to look at research I've been involved in and programs I've helped develop in this area. You see less recidivism, rather than just throwing somebody in jail, in the most violent, anti-social environment imaginable.
Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Looking at the clock, we are past 5:30. I have a few more people on my list. Recognizing that there will be no way we're going to get through Bill S-205 today, I'm going to ask to adjourn shortly.
However, I'm going to let you know that I had a great walk over with a PS, who said, “Hey, what's Thursday looking like?” With everybody's agreement, Thursday's meeting will be cancelled so that we can continue on with everything.
Anyway, seeing that we have no further business today, I call this meeting adjourned.