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.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
We've heard something different from the officials. We've heard from the officials that this is what this legislation does.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Baber, I am not going to argue with you. We've been through this before.
I'll say what I said earlier. I gave Mr. Brock an opportunity to speak at the outset, because all of these proposed amendments were being deemed out of scope for very similar reasons. I thought that was fair.
When I rule, there is no provision for you to make submissions. I realize you are making Twitter clips during the course of this thing. I would include in those Twitter clips that we have rules at this committee and they are to be followed. I'm trying to enforce them. It's as simple as that.
Mr. Clerk, it's over to you.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
It doesn't sound like we're having a discussion.
The officials told you that what the bill does is it restores mandatory minimum—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No, not “one second.” We have rules, Mr. Baber. We're following those rules.
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
That takes us to CPC-17, which, for the same reasons I've previously stated, I am also ruling out of scope.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 27)
That takes us to clause 27 and NDP-5.
I'll turn the floor over to you, Ms. Gazan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry. I should point out that if NDP-5 is adopted, then G-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
This one is from NAWL as well. Experts have told us the change to the category of harassment in Bill C-16 is problematic. In the recent past, charges of harassment were dismissed because women being harassed did not show signs of fear despite the intent of harassment.
I want to point out that not showing signs is a subjective observation. What we found at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that often police and first responders to an event are not trained, particularly in instances of coercive control, nor are judges, in fact, because it's a very new area. I know it's an area the bill attempts to address and add to the Criminal Code.
Additionally, somebody who's aware that a victim holds an unreasonable fear, such as a phobia of spiders, could use this knowledge to wilfully harass a victim. These are things that people might not see that a person perpetrating violence is using to intentionally traumatize their victim.
There are also a lot of concerns surrounding threats made to animals like pets. NDP-5 expands this category to include other pets known to the victim, such as an animal belonging to a friend or partner.
This remains an act of violence and is actually a really big deal. Many people experiencing intimate partner violence will not leave because they are scared of what will happen to their pets. There have been studies, and in Winnipeg in transitional housing, pets are now allowed so people who are fleeing violence don't have to worry about their pets. Making threats to kill a pet sounds peculiar, but it's actually really common for perpetrators of violence to use violence and threats against pets as a form of coercive control to trap victims.
We're hoping that you support that amendment.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you to the member for bringing forward that amendment.
Although we agree with the intent behind the amendment, we are going to oppose it—or I will oppose it. The amendment we will bring forward and other amendments we will see further down address the same issue. They use more precise consent language in their structure to avoid unintended impacts in sensitive situations, including the work capacity or emergency considerations that are at play. I will be opposing your amendment because of that, but not because of the intent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall NDP-5 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to G-4.
Ms. Dhillon.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
This motion would amend subclause 27(1) of the bill to clarify that the criminal harassment offence applies to persons who know that their conduct would harass the victim and not just to persons who intend to harass the victim or who are reckless as to whether their conduct would have that effect.
Stakeholders have pointed out that the offence does not specify that an accused who knows their conduct would harass the victim is also committing the offence. This amendment would clarify that fact.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to NDP-6. Since NDP-6 is deemed moved, G-5 cannot be moved because they are identical.
Ms. Gazan.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
It's similar to the other amendments, to ensure that threats against a pet, animal or anyone known to the victim, such as a parent, child or friend, are included in this offence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Is there no one else? Okay.
Shall NDP-6 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 27 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 28)
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
CPC-18 seeks to conform the new offence of coercive control to the rest of the Criminal Code, effectively, with a few exceptions. There are various levels of the guilty mind of intent. Wilfulness is enough to prove intent, as is knowledge. Wilful blindness is the flip coin of “knowingly”, but recklessness normally is not sufficient to predicate the making of the mens rea component, with a few exceptions, like manslaughter, wanton disregard, failing to provide the necessities of life, etc. What this amendment seeks to do is to remove recklessness.
