Justice Committee on Oct. 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I agree. The evidence of Jonathan Rudin of Aboriginal Legal Services, as was said, was counterintuitive. I would never have thought I'd be in favour of his perspective, the idea of removing the reverse onus, but he said the following, and I just want to read it into the record:

One of the impacts of dual charging is that women end up with convictions for assault that they should never have had. If these provisions go through and their partner once again alleges abuse then they may have trouble meeting the reverse onus. This means that they will be detained, they will likely plead guilty and the cycle will continue and continue. Over 40% of women in custody today are Indigenous—this provision of the bill will make a shameful situation even worse.

That's Jonathan Rudin, who deals with this issue day in and day out. I found his testimony overwhelmingly powerful. I hope the members of this committee will see fit to reverse this injustice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I'll be brief.

I appreciate the points made by both my colleagues. This isn't an easy one, but we know there is reverse onus on bail conditions now for a number of circumstances. The problem I have with the amendment is that it would undermine protections for vulnerable victims. As Ms. May rightly said, these are in situations where there has been a prior record, a prior instance where there has been intimate partner violence. Research shows these victims in particular are at an increased risk of violence in the aftermath of reporting to the police. I totally understand the concerns that have been expressed, but I believe there may be unintended consequences if it's proceeded with in that fashion.

I would note as well that just because it's a reverse onus doesn't mean the person doesn't have the opportunity to be granted bail. That is still the principle that should be adhered to when they can show there is no risk to the public or to their domestic partner.

For those reasons I will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I echo the words of Mr. Fraser in saying that it's important to protect those who come forward and report intimate partner violence. I think the reverse onus provisions would definitely do that.

We did hear testimony questioning whether this would impact the number of people who report, but we also heard testimony saying that it really doesn't impact the people who are reporting it. It does not deter people from reporting, just dealing with the aftermath of the situation. With that, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Does anyone else wish to speak on this?

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I think part of Mr. Rankin's argument was that, because of dual charging, spouses often end up with convictions that they should not have had, and therefore, the reverse onus is a problem; however, I think the problem here isn't the idea that they have convictions that they should never have had. The problem is not the reverse onus in this case. It's whether or not they should have had these convictions in the first place.

Mr. Rankin's argument asks us to discount the finding of a previous process of a court, which found this person guilty of an offence. Whether they should have been convicted or not is really not up to the process at this point. It's a problem of the previous conviction. In any case, I can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'd like a roll call, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sure.

We're going to do a roll call vote then, please, Mr. Clerk.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, will we be voting on each separately, Parti Vert and NDP?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

NDP-8 and PV-28 are exactly the same amendment. PV-28 was submitted before NDP-8, so we would essentially vote on PV-28, but NDP-8 would be the same because they're tied together. They're the same words.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I just wanted to clarify which amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I always try to make sure that everybody feels included. It's both amendments because they're the same, but the actual one is PV-28.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That's defeated so now we move to Green Party-29.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We're in a different section, but we're still dealing with the concept of reverse onus. Green Party amendment 29 would restrict the type of prior offence that would trigger reverse onus if the accused is charged with an offence under subsections 145(2) to 145(5), which are the sections that deal with escape and being at large without excuse, to those prior offences that are processed as indictments only.

The advice we had here was from the Society of United Professionals, those lawyers who do legal aid work. Current reading of the code would place a reverse onus on any accused person who commits a hybrid offence while on release from another hybrid offence, regardless of whether those were summary convictions or indictments. The application of the reverse onus should never be overly broad, and if we don't amend this, that would leave the application of the reverse onus overly broad.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much for that succinct explanation of a very complex provision.

Is there any discussion? Not seeing any we will vote on PV-29.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to PV-30, which I think is changing “desirable” to “necessary” again.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That is exactly what it does. It increases the threshold for judicial discretion in release of conditions where a reverse onus has been met.

Again, looking at R. v. Morales and the notion that we should only do these things when they are necessary, we'll get rid of the word “desirable” and replace it with the word “necessary”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion? If not, we'll vote on Green Party-30?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We move to NDP-9.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

This is the same principle in terms of release orders by specifying the detention of the accused must only be used if necessary to ensure the attendance in court and in regard to the seriousness of the offence. Why? If the offence of the accused is not serious, then measures of detention should not be taken to ensure that they'll appear in court, as the accused does not pose a security risk to the public.

It's pretty straightforward and I think pretty practical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

By the way, just so that you can have that chance... I don't have it here but NDP-9 and NDP-10 are amending the same line. I'm presuming that you want to go with NDP-9 first.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Perfect.

Sorry, I should have mentioned before that if NDP-9 is adopted NDP-10 can't be because they conflict.

Is there any discussion on NDP-9?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have NDP-10.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think the implication is that.... Does this go forward or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

You're amending the same lines but because NDP-9 was defeated, NDP-10 can go forward.