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.
Liberal
Marilyn Gladu Liberal Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It's a pleasure to be here talking about Bill C-16. I was chair of the status of women committee for many years, and a lot of the recommendations that are in this legislation came forward there. We heard testimony similar to what Mr. Lawton is saying about the need for a mechanism to remove the pictures and images that are there, so I do support this.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an important issue, and I think I will be supporting Mr. Lawton's amendment. That said, I was wondering about the 48-hour time frame, which I wanted to mention in committee. I think it's very important and urgent to remove it.
How realistic is it? Right now, there is no leeway. It says that it must be court-ordered. Obviously, if the court orders it, it has to be done. I wonder about the possibility of doing so in 48 hours, and I'd like to hear from the analysts on that. However, I agree with the principle.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Chair, if it's okay, I'll bring a colleague, Mr. Wong, to the table.
Normand Wong General counsel, As an Individual
Thank you for the question, Mr. Fortin.
Regarding the 48 hours, I'm not entirely sure. We haven't had a chance to study this amendment.
The way that 164.1 works currently is that the judge orders the takedown, and that is interpreted as the immediate takedown. On the timing of 48 hours, it's unclear to us whether that would delay the removal of the intimate images or if it would actually speed things up. As to whether it's possible, we have not had an opportunity to talk to service providers who might be hosting this type of material.
Bloc
General counsel, As an Individual
That's correct. It might be possible, but we're not really sure.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I have another question on the same topic.
Has anyone checked with the provinces to determine whether they felt that this was something feasible for managing the justice system?
General counsel, As an Individual
With respect to the question about section 164.1, no cases have been reported. That was added to the Criminal Code in 2001, and there have been no cases since. When Internet service providers are notified that something is on their network, they remove it immediately, with no need for a court order.
Liberal
Marilyn Gladu Liberal Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
For your information, Mr. Fortin, when we did a study on violence against women and girls, there was a specific case, Rehtaeh Parsons, who ended up committing suicide because images couldn't be taken down. There was a web provider called NeedHelpNow.ca that was able to get 95% of content down within this time frame. We challenged Meta to do the same, so they introduced a mechanism whereby you can report content and have it removed if it's objectionable. Therefore, I believe it is possible. Those are just two examples.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Shall CPC-14 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to)
(On clause 25)
This takes us to CPC-15.
Mr. Lawton.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Could I request a brief suspension of about 90 seconds, Chair?
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I would like to move CPC-15. I just want to provide a bit of context on this one first.
Let me say that I genuinely trust, despite our disagreements across party lines on some parts of this legislation, that we all understand the horrors of intimate partner violence. I think we cannot look at that.... While understanding that intimate partner violence can happen to both men and women, we know that women disproportionately bear the brunt of this.
This has been an issue that I have been very fortunate to never have encountered in my family, but I have had friends—women—who have been in very abusive relationships. One had to leave the country to feel safe.
I have also been very grateful to have testimony from witnesses locally, whom I sought to include in this committee's work. Jennifer Dunn, from the London Abused Women's Centre, was very eloquent in her comments, as she always is. We had Valora Place in St. Thomas as well. We had Chief Thai Truong from the London Police Service, which has also been a tremendous advocate for protecting women from the violence that, sadly, all too often faces and confronts them.
One thing that came up in the testimony we heard before this committee and in other conversations I had, including with Megan Walker, who was formerly the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre and whom I've come to know quite well, is that we need to have explicit protections and explicit reference to women when we're talking about femicide. This came up in multiple witnesses' testimony, where femicide was alluded to in a header but not actually defined or established with any degree of clarity in the bill itself.
My amendment, simply put, replaces intimate partner violence with femicide. This is something that women's advocates have argued is important, because they believe “IPV” is too euphemistic and doesn't actually speak to women and to the issue.
It defines very clearly that femicide is “first degree murder when the victim is female and the death is caused by her intimate partner.”
It's a very clear definition. It's a very simple one, and it's one that acknowledges the horrific harms that women in abusive relationships have to confront in these cases, tragically, when there is a murder involved.
I welcome any feedback and input from the committee on this, but that was where this came from, and those were the consultations that went into this amendment.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I have a question for the officials.
On this proposed amendment, would you not agree that it narrows femicide to killings of female intimate partners and removes other contexts, like coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation and misogyny?
In your opinion, does it undermine the broader intent of Bill C-16 and remove protections for other high-risk contexts and victims?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would remove three of the circumstances: exploitation, sexual violence and misogyny. Those are in proposed paragraph 231(5.1)(b), proposed paragraph 231(5.1)(c) and proposed paragraph 231(5.1)(d). It would fundamentally change proposed paragraph 231(5.1)(a) to apply only when the victim is a woman and is the accused's intimate partner. It would remove the concept of coercive control entirely and wouldn't protect victims of other genders who may also be subjected to coercive control.
The bigger concern is that the overall objective of this amendment would be to remove key provisions. The sexual violence provision is the one that would apply any time a murder occurs where there is an offence of a sexual nature, or an offence committed for a sexual purpose also occurring at the same time. The concern is that this would target cases we know have occurred, like the Pickton case, for example, which involved somebody who murdered many women in the course of purchasing sexual services from them. That provision would capture this type of scenario. It's for all kinds of murders that take place in the context of sexual violence. It's quite broad.
The characterization of “offence of a sexual nature” is any offence that involves an act that is objectively sexual in nature. An offence that is committed “for a sexual purpose” is one committed with the intent to facilitate an act of a sexual nature. Removing that, I think, would defeat the purpose of identifying that aspect of femicide.
Of course, removing the hate-motivated aspect means this provision would no longer cover cases like the tragedy at Polytechnique or the incel cases we've had, etc. Removing the exploitation one means it wouldn't cover situations where labour or services are exploited and where a murder occurs in that context.
I'd also say that this provision would provide an effective definition of “femicide”. It says that any time a female is killed in any one of these circumstances, it is femicide. There is a definition built in to this provision.
I hope that helps. Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.
Seeing no other—
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Lawton.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I just want to understand that last comment a bit more clearly, if I could, please, Ms. Levman.
Are you saying that femicide is implicitly defined in the legislation but not explicitly defined?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'd call it more of an effective definition, because the marginal note, which identifies the content of a provision for awareness reasons and for being able to identify what's in a provision.... You're right that it wouldn't have force of law, but it certainly labels the provision. The marginal note is “Femicide...and other aggravated circumstances”.
This means that when a female is killed in any of the (a), (b), (c) or (d) circumstances as I've described them, the legislation would define those circumstances as femicide.
That is my understanding of the effect of the provision.