Evidence of meeting #28 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I don't have the actual bill in front of me.
Officials, is this within the context of sentencing only, or would it also apply at the judicial interim release stage to include all offences that pertain to an intimate partner?
Jocelyn Sigouin Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This is a sentencing provision. It's a new provision in the Criminal Code that would allow a judge to impose an order prohibiting an offender, when they're being sentenced for certain offences, from contacting a victim, a witness or another person.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
This is not mandatory. This would be a discretionary order.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Do you not think this particular clause would be redundant? I'm just thinking about the number of times I was prosecuting, say, a non-assault offence involving a husband and wife or a boyfriend and girlfriend. It could be mischief. It could be a break and enter. It could be a number of other non-assault offences. I would routinely be asking for a no-contact order as part of probation, and nine times out of 10 it would be granted. In the context of what's currently happening in our judicial system with that discretion already being available to judges and where Crowns or victims ask specifically for that type of protection in their victim impact statements, don't you think that the current regime already addresses the concerns raised by my NDP colleague?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This no-contact order fills the gap in no-contact orders. It allows the order to be in place for life, which isn't currently available. I believe what the NDP motion is proposing is to change the scope of offences for which the no-contact order can be imposed.
What's proposed in Bill C-16 is to allow the no-contact order to be imposed in cases of a certain list of offences, including offences in which violence is used, attempted or threatened against an intimate partner. The proposal is to have it apply to any offence against an intimate partner.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thanks for the clarification. For follow-up purposes, Bill C-16 talks about a no-contact order for life in those circumstances.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This was proposed in this clause, yes. It can be for life or for a shorter period of time.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I missed that distinction, so thanks for pointing that out.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
As far as I understand it, NDP-22 expands the scope of when a judge may impose a no-contact order to include all offences against an intimate partner. Am I correct?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's right.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
This NDP amendment actually makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think it should be overly contentious. I believe that we'll vote in favour of it.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall NDP-22 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to G-32.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
We voted down NDP-22 to be able to introduce G-32. The purpose of this motion is to expand the availability of the bill's proposed no-contact orders to apply to offenders who commit any offence against their intimate partner, not just a violent offence. In so doing, it provides greater protection to victims and recognizes that non-violent offences can involve elements of power, control and psychological abuse when committed in the context of an intimate partner relationship. That is why we voted down NDP-22.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
There are no other hands.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 69 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 70 to 73 agreed to)
(On clause 74)
We're on clause 74 and amendment G-33.
We have Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
It's a technical amendment. It corrects a typo in the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 74 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 75 to 79 agreed to)
(On clause 80)
Mr. Fortin, we'll go over to you for BQ-1.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of amendments BQ‑1 and BQ‑2 is simply to harmonize the texts. We made amendments previously regarding the objective test versus the subjective test. It's a matter of harmonization.
I think we should apply the same criteria to the relevant clauses, that is clause 810 and subsection 810(1) of the Criminal Code, as we did with a previous clause. I believe it was clause 76, but I'm not sure.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Shall BQ-1 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 80 agreed to)
(On clause 81)
On clause 81, we have BQ-2, Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, again, this is harmonization of the texts of clause 810 and subsection 810(1) of the Criminal Code with what was previously adopted in terms of the reasonableness of whistle-blowing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. Shall BQ-2 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on NDP-23, Ms. Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This amendment reflects a suggestion from the National Association of Women and the Law to strengthen language in this bill around weapons prohibitions as a condition of recognizance for offenders in intimate partner violence cases.
Experts from the National Association of Women and the Law have told us that it is essential to close loopholes in the Firearms Act that continue to endanger survivors of intimate partner violence. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect women and gender-diverse people from gun violence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Shall NDP-23 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 81 agreed to)
(Clauses 82 to 89 agreed to)
That takes us to clause 90. PV-7 is withdrawn.
(Clause 90 agreed to)
That takes us to clause 91. PV-8 is withdrawn, which means that I can group clauses 91 through to and including clause 99.
(Clauses 91 to 99 agreed to)
(On clause 100)
Clause 100 brings us to G-34 and Ms. Gladu.