Evidence of meeting #27 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ruling.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have no vote, but I do have a thought. I understand that you're talking about the amendment and that it would delete NDP-6.1. Is that right? If we accept your amendment, are we still able to move forward with my amendment, NDP-6.1?
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Okay. I ask because my amendment doesn't deal with what we were talking about. It comes from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and is specifically about self-harm and mental crisis and about potentially criminalizing those who are experiencing mental health crisis due to the legacy of residential schools and genocide. This fits into the Gladue and Ipeelee principles. Especially if you're looking at the highest rates of violence with indigenous women, these factors, residential schools and PTSD, impact our families.
We also know that indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by the carceral system, and we're passing legislation that reinforces and perpetuates the legacy of systemic racism. All of the bills—and I know the Conservatives have brought up Bill C-5—push back against Gladue and Ipeelee principles, which could be used by courts in cases of residential school survivors, for example, not having to justify trauma based on their historical experiences.
I know that I don't have a vote, but I think it's unfortunate, especially if you're looking at the most impacted populations, that we just ignore that.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I have questions that I hope to ask the officials about proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c). The questions are not pertaining to Mr. Housefather's amendment specifically. For clarity about the process, can questions be asked of officials when we get to the overall decision on the clause itself?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right. Shall G-7 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to CPC-19.
Mr. Lawton—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
There was a line conflict between G-7 and NDP-6.1, Mr. Fortin. Because G-7 was adopted, we can't move 6.1.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, that's not what I'm reading. In my opinion, NDP‑6.1 should have come before G‑7. G‑7 referred to an addition after line 38, so after subparagraph (vii), which Ms. Gazan was talking about. I don't think one precludes the other, with all due respect, but I'll leave that up to you.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Building off the comments made by one of my colleagues here before, coercive control is a new area in law. It is important to get it right. It's important to confront a lot of the feedback we've gotten from both sides of it. I actually looked to a former New Democrat MP on this one. Laurel Collins, in the previous Parliament, put forward a coercive control bill that I believe had support from all parties.
This was a defence from that, on coercive control. It provides absolute clarity on the types of conduct, conflict and disputes within relationships that do not qualify as coercive control. That's the spirit of CPC-19.
It would add the following:
(3.1) If an accused is charged with an offence under subsection (1), it is a defence that
(a) the accused was acting in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed; and
(b) the conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances.
It's just taking the language from Laurel Collins' bill in the previous Parliament, which was Bill C-332.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
You supported it in the last Parliament. We all did. It's identical.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right, we're having a vote on CPC-19.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Bloc
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I don't want to make this a never-ending story, but I'd like to come back to NDP‑6.1 and G‑7, which were discussed earlier. I now understand your comments, because the legislative clerk showed me that, in the English version, line 36 was actually eliminated. You're right. However, in the French version, it would have worked. I was told that the English version takes precedence over the French version, unless I misunderstood. If that is indeed the case, I would like to point out that it seems to me to be contrary to the rules applicable to Parliament. The English and French versions should be the same in scope. Neither should take precedence over the other.
I understand that we are facing a tough dilemma. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't have known what to do either. I am not blaming you personally, but I wanted to emphasize that, when amendments are drafted, we should make sure that the English and French versions have the same effect, which is not the case here.
I'm not speaking up because I'm attached to NDP‑6.1. I would have voted against that amendment. I won't dwell on this for half an hour, but, as a matter of principle, I wanted to point out that I have a problem with saying that the English version takes precedence over the French version.
