Justice Committee on Dec. 5th, 2018

[Claire Farid, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice]

What we can say about the definition of “family violence” is that it is gender-neutral. It would apply to intimate partner violence, which can happen between different genders or the same gender, but it also includes violence that can happen to children. It's a broad definition and it would include violence committed against whatever gender, as long as it falls within the broad definition of conduct that's covered by that definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Of course, but I'm asking whether this could create confusion when you specify one group and say it includes all violence against one group. Could that then create confusion for the court that the legislators didn't intend to include all forms of violence against other groups?

[Claire Farid]

I can't comment on whether it will cause confusion for the court, but certainly the way it is drafted now it would be clear that any type of violence by one gender to another would be included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

Let's proceed to a vote on amendment NDP-1.

(Amendment negatived on division.)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We now move to amendment PV-2.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The long definition section that deals with all the definitions that relate to family violence and other forms of threats is amended by my proposal, which remains gender-neutral. I want to stress that.

What it does is import to the legislation the understanding that threats of violence can include threats made through cyberspace or on Facebook pages. A number of witnesses we've heard here have made the point that cyber-violence is actually one of the main forms of family violence now. To make that explicit, threats on Facebook, threats through texting, threats of sending intimate photos, and so on, are an important area of psychological violence and can lead people to suicide. It's a real threat, but it's much less personal than our conventional understanding of threats of violence, so I would urge the committee to consider this amendment favourably.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Khalid.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I hold a bit different view. The definition as it is in the bill is still quite broad. Although it's important to address it and necessary to acknowledge that this type of violence exists, I don't think codifying it by including language such as this is the right approach.

As “family violence” is determined on a case-by-case basis in the courts, the application of these kinds of threats should also be made on a case-by-case basis. My fear is that by adding this type of language, we're actually narrowing the scope of what “family violence” could mean, so I will not be supporting this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any other interventions?

Ms. May.

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

Iqra, with all due respect, I can't see how that makes sense. This is just for greater certainty and furthers the definition. This just ensures that it is included. It doesn't create confusion. It doesn't diminish any other interpretative, judicial or prosecutorial understandings of family violence. It merely makes explicit something that could be seen as somewhat in the virtual realm. It clarifies it, in a way, but it takes nothing away from the existing broad definition found within the act.

It is a positive and helpful addition. As you'll remember, of course, in the evidence, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario was the specific witness that called for this change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thanks.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder whether the Department of Justice officials have any comments.

[Claire Farid]

The minister has already indicated that the definition of “family violence” is a very broad one. The examples given in the list are non-exhaustive, so it doesn't preclude other types of family violence from being considered if they fall within the general, broad definition.

The other issue I would raise is with respect to the terminology of Internet and digital networks and the extent to which that terminology might or might not be reflected in other federal legislation.

[Michael Cooper]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Khalid.

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

This might be a really minute point, but I'll say it anyway.

We're writing this legislation for the long term. While digital communications might still be a little fresh now, I imagine 20 years from now, going back to this act and seeing how that would impact the definition of “family violence”. I really think we should keep it as broad as we can, which is the way it is currently written.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll go to a vote on PV-2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

There are no amendments proposed to clauses 2 to 7.

Colleagues, can we do them as a group?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will move to clause 8, which starts with amendment LIB-1. If amendment LIB-1 is adopted, amendment PV-3 cannot be moved, because there is a line conflict.

I believe amendment LIB-1 was Mr. McKinnon's. I don't know whether you're continuing with this one or are withdrawing it.

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

I have a number of amendments, of course, which I submitted in consequence to witness testimony, wanting to make sure they were on the table for us to consider. I've been persuaded, however, in talking to legal people who know the act and know the legislation much better, that this is not necessary. I'm withdrawing it at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That means we will go to amendment PV-3.

Ms. May.

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

I can see that there is opposition to this amendment, but I was really pleased when I saw that you had proposed to move this measure, Mr. McKinnon.

The evidence here came—as many of my amendments did, by the way—from Luke's Place and the National Association of Women and the Law. While we want to see diversity and dispute resolution processes, we want to give parties a chance to sort things out and make informed choices. We need to pay attention to situations in which alternative dispute resolutions processes provide abusers with ongoing contact with the spouse who has been abused. The additional language here is just as a reminder. It doesn't cut off that option.

It is just a reminder that:

To the extent that it is appropriate to do so, especially with regard to the risks that ongoing contact between the parties may pose in cases of family violence,

It continues on page 10, that the parties:

shall try to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order under this Act through a family dispute resolution process.

It just is a reminder that this may not be appropriate in all cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McKinnon.