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
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-11 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is G-12.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
That would be me, Mr. Chair.
This is also a technical amendment. It removes the words “for a hearing” from proposed subsection 276.06(1).
This technical amendment would ensure clarity that the procedure for the Crown to apply to adduce evidence of sexual activity is intended by Parliament to be a single-stage procedure. This is not a policy change; rather, the words “for a hearing” were unintentionally included in the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Shall G-12 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on NDP-10.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
The amendment that we're proposing was submitted by LEAF.
This amendment relates to procedures surrounding the admissibility of sexual history as evidence. It is based on recommendations from organizations such as LEAF to create greater legal protections for women and gender-diverse people when there is an application for considering their sexual history.
This would provide greater notice to the complainant prior to the hearing to determine the admissibility of this evidence and would provide complainants with independent legal advice and standing during this process.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall NDP-10 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On G-13, go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is the exact same rationale that I used when I spoke to G-11.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-13 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is G-14.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
That would be me, Mr. Chair.
It's another technical amendment. It fixes a typo in proposed subsection 276.1(6) by removing the second “the” from “as to the uses that the they may and may not make of that evidence”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-14 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is NDP-11.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
If this were a baseball game, I'd feel like I was losing, but I'll tell you what my amendment is.
It's similar to my last amendment. On the recommendation of legal experts such as LEAF, it would ensure that the complainant would have a clear statutory right to counsel from the outset of the joint application process for the use of sexual history as evidence. This is important to ensure that women and gender-diverse people have legal protections to ensure that the rights of women and gender-diverse people are upheld in legal proceedings.
I'm wondering if I can ask the drafters about this, because it was really focused on by some of the women's organizations.
What is the issue with putting limitations on utilizing sexual history in the courts as part of the process? I understand you're voting against it, but there's been a lot of research about.... Is it just a line conflict, or is it...with the amendments we're proposing?
I'm sorry. I'm getting tired.
The amendment reads:
(7) For greater certainty, the complainant has the right to be represented by counsel.
Liberal
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, I'm asking a question—a very convoluted, tired question. I really apologize so much.
Liberal
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you, member, for the question.
NDP-11 would insert a “for greater certainty” clause into the first of the two proposed joint admissibility application processes that are new to Bill C-16 and potentially to the Criminal Code.
Looking at the very beginning of that procedure, you'll note that the proposed language in both of the joint application procedures refers to all three—the Crown, the defence and the complainant—agreeing to jointly apply together, so the position of the department would be that this alone does grant complainants the necessary standing as part of the joint application process.
That being said, there would be very little legal risk to including a “for greater certainty” clause in the joint application procedures to clarify that fact, because it is unusual, typically, for a complainant to be a party and to have standing. This would clarify that fact.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
To follow up, the amendment I am offering would provide further clarity.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Yes. A “for greater certainty” clause can operate to clarify the existing state of the law and make it extremely clear for all justice system participants that this is the intention. That's what this would theoretically do. It would provide that clarity if it were adopted by the committee.
NDP
Conservative
