Bill S-205

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence.

[Chelsea Moore, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can speak to the effect of the G-1 motion that was voted on previously, if that's helpful to the committee.

The effect of the G-1 motion was that electronic monitoring would not be explicitly listed as a bail condition that a court could impose for all offences. That's what Bill S-205 had proposed—that electronic monitoring be added so that it could be imposed for all offences. Currently the conditions listed in subsection 515(4) of the Criminal Code are standard conditions that are routinely imposed and more broadly applicable to the different types of charges that come before the court.

For example, it says to report to a police officer, “remain within a [certain] territorial jurisdiction”, not to contact the victim or go to a certain area of the city. These are standard conditions that are routinely imposed, and that's why they fall under the standard bail conditions list.

Any condition that is added to the standard list does have the potential to become more routinely imposed, simply because it's easy to check off once it's on the list. While in many cases it could be considered a necessary condition, it could also be routinely imposed, even though it might not be reasonable or necessary. However, as mentioned previously, even if it's removed from that list—and it's not included in this bill—it would still be allowed to be imposed where appropriate, because a judge has this residual power to impose any condition that's reasonable or necessary. However, judges would be required to “consider” electronic monitoring as a result of the changes made in Bill C-233 in cases of domestic violence.

[Julia Nicol, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

Originally, as was explained by the member, that's what would happen. However, you'll remember that subclause 1(2) of Bill S-205, regarding electronic monitoring, has been removed. Bill S-205 no longer deals with electronic monitoring in the bail context. It's still in the peace bond. At this point it's not necessary because we're not addressing the same things anymore.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-205 , an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act.

At the meeting of December 4, the committee adopted the following: clause 1 as amended by amendments G-1 and G-2; clause 4; clause 5; clause 9; and clause 10. At the meeting of December 11, the committee adopted amendments G-3 and G-4 pertaining to clause 2. At the meeting of January 30, the committee adopted clause 2 as amended by G-5, NDP-2, G-6 and G-7; clause 3 as amended by G-8; clause 6 as amended by G-9, G-10 and G-11; and clause 7 as amended by G-12.

(On clause 8)

Today we are resuming debate on amendment G-13, which pertains to clause 8. G-13 was moved by Lisa on January 30.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Before I go to Madame Larouche, I want to say that this motion was referred to the subcommittee, and we will proceed to Bill S-205.

Madame Larouche, do you want to speak?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really want to thank everybody today. This has actually been more productive than I expected it would be. There is definitely a concern that Bill S-205 was put forward and doesn't put victims' rights in the driver's seat. I know we have to work together to ensure that it's not amended to the point that it compromises victims.

With that being said, I think there are a few more amendments that our team wants to spend some time on, dive deeper into and discuss, because we have until April to get this bill back to the House to ensure that it passes for Senator Boisvenu.

In the interim, we've just come back from time in our constituencies, time to go home, time to listen and time to meet with people on the ground. Because we're the status of women committee, and I know you all care, I want to move a motion—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sure. Thank you so much.

I want to move that Bill S-205, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 2 the following:

(4.1) If the informant or the defendant is Indigenous, the provincial court judge shall consider whether, instead of making an order under subsection (3) or (4), it would be more appropriate to recommend that Indigenous support services, if any are available, be provided.

I think it's something that was long fought for in terms of recognizing the impacts of colonization, the Gladue principles, and principles that were supported in the Ipeelee case.

I am merely ensuring that it's consistent with Canadian law. That's it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Right now, I'm torn about whether I want Bill S‑205 to pass. Honestly, it must pass.

Unfortunately, the year started badly for me. I learned through the media that the first femicide of the year in Quebec took place in my area, in Granby. In front of the media, I pledged to make every effort to help this committee take concrete steps to ensure that not one more femicide occurs.

I would like Bill S‑205 to pass. Everyone has questions. I would like us to try to move ahead with the consideration of this crucial and significant bill.

I'm trying to form an opinion on amendment G‑5. We obviously need to take steps to get this bill passed.

I also met with groups of women, just last week in Chicoutimi, who spoke about the need for access to a continuum of services, a term that often comes up. They also spoke about the need for society as a whole to take this issue seriously, both on a legal basis and as a public health, mental health and support issue. Our entire system must work together with community groups, which are doing an outstanding job.

In terms of amendment G‑5, I'm just trying to get a feel for it. I'm trying to understand what the legal experts are saying. Is this amendment sound? Does it make the bill less strict?

I'm having trouble forming an opinion on this amendment. I'll continue to follow and take part in the discussions. All I want is for Bill S‑205 to pass.

I understand that amendments have been moved. Ultimately, we must keep in mind that this bill is a vital part of our fight to end the femicide epidemic, which continues to claim too many victims across Quebec and Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act.

At the meeting of December 4, 2023, the committee adopted the following: clause 1 as amended by G-1 and G-2, clause 4, clause 5, clause 9 and clause 10. At the meeting of December 11, the committee adopted amendments G-3 and G-4 pertaining to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Today we are resuming debate on amendment G-5 pertaining to clause 2, which was already moved. Now we are resuming debate on G-5.

Mrs. Vecchio.

[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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The questions have been raised.

As I understand it, the original version of Bill S‑205 stipulates that the defendant must keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than two years. Under this amendment, the period would change to 12 months, so I would like to understand the reasons for that.

What's the relationship to severity and consequences? Can one of the experts explain it to us? What is safer for victims? I will listen to what the experts have to say.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I think we're looking at the subamendment from Ms. Lewis. I just wanted to make a few comments.

As Leah pointed out, the Minister of Justice has also called gender-based violence an epidemic.

I just want to follow up on what Ms. Ferreri said about the changes to the original amendment. The idea is not to exclude intimate partners, but to include everyone who is close to the victim, so they have the right to provide information and request a peace bond. This is an improvement on the current situation because it removes obstacles.

That language is an improvement, because if we just put “intimate partner” in there, as Bill S-205 states, then family members or others cannot apply for a peace bond on behalf of the victim.

It is an improvement. I just wanted to add that. Now—

[Julia Nicol, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Here are some points for consideration.

The subamendment relates, as was mentioned, to the tests that a woman would have to meet to get a peace bond against her intimate partner. The current tests set out in Bill S-205 and in amendment G-3 require that she establish a reasonable fear of her intimate partner causing personal injury. The subamendment that we are now discussing would require belief on reasonable and probable grounds. The language added by the subamendment is not found in the existing peace bond provisions, so it would introduce a novel concept into the peace bond regime.

The six existing peace bonds require fear on reasonable grounds, which is a test known to the court and has been found to be constitutional—for example, in the case of R. v. Budreo in the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is often cited. There is a requirement that the person have the fear—the subjective part—but there is also a requirement, which has been interpreted in case law, for the judge to objectively assess whether that fear is reasonable, so that part addresses concerns that it would be an irrational fear and so forth. Case law has addressed that and interpreted the term to identify an objective requirement that the judge assesses.

It's not really possible to speculate on exactly what the courts would say on what the difference would be by adding “probable”. One possibility, which was alluded to earlier, is that it could be harder to get the peace bond. You would have to demonstrate that you don't just fear “on reasonable grounds” but that you fear “on reasonable and probable grounds” that you will be harmed by your spouse.

I'm not sure if that helps, but those are some considerations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 91 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. Members are in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'm going to remind everybody of the etiquette when it comes to making sure that we do not have our earpieces near the microphones and making sure that we put up our hands when necessary.

If we need to direct any questions, we have both Chelsea Moore and Julia Nicol here, who will be helping us today as we're going along through this.

Play with your mics and do everything properly. Let's not bug the translators. Let's be good.

Raise your hand if you have any comments. I will be keeping a speaking order throughout the day. Members in the room, if you wish to speak, also raise your hand.

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.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205. As a reminder, we did start it, but we had an amendment, and a lot of things go through there.

As members already know, this is an examination of all clauses of the bill in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call out each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to a clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no member wishes to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in your package. I will try to go slowly as we do this. Amendments have been given numbers, as everybody remembers. You have the numbers in the top corner.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These amendments must be submitted in writing. Just as a reminder, we do know that we need legal translation. If we're working ahead of time, let's just make sure that we're doing that.

Let's just get right to work. I think everybody is ready to get to work.

At the meeting on December 4, the committee adopted the following. We adopted clause 1 as amended by G-1 and G-2. We adopted clause 4. We adopted clause 5. We adopted clause 9, and we adopted clause 10.

(On clause 2)

We are resuming debate on clause 2 with the subamendment to amendment G-3. The subamendment was moved by Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, I'm going to pass it back over to you, because we are on the subamendment to G-3.

I will start by passing the floor over to you for discussion.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Bill S-205 is still being studied, Michelle. I look forward to what comes out of this committee.

Thank you so much.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Michelle, it's good to see you.

First and foremost, our government under Minister Virani has declared intimate partner violence an epidemic. My home province of Ontario, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, has not, so I will start there.

With respect to Bill S-205, it's my understanding, Michelle, that it's being studied by a committee and that clause-by-clause is still in progress. As a guest of this committee, I will not speak to the decisions of committee members and the decisions they are making here. However, I will say, with regard to intimate partner violence, that just this year Keira's law was passed.