That's unbelievable.
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.
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
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, you don't believe that's an expansion of an existing—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 38)
All right, that takes us to clause 38 and G-26.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
G-26 proposes to amend clause 38, which would amend section 486.1 of the Criminal Code to make testimony with the support of a person or animal presumably available for victims in proceedings related to any offence committed by an intimate partner. This amendment would require a consequential amendment to subclause 2(1) in order to remove the reference to section 486.1 that appears in proposed subsection 3.01(2).
Expanding the availability of testimonial aids to all intimate partner offences recognizes that power imbalances and fear can affect a victim's ability to testify, even in the context of non-violent offences, since other unreported abuse may be present.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Shall G-26 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 39)
That takes us to clause 39 and NDP-16.
If NDP-16 is adopted, G-27 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
NDP-16 is similar to an amendment previously moved. This would extend the procedural protections to all those who are victimized by an intimate partner and would not restrict procedural supports to a limited number of offences.
What's important here is that these protections and legal proceedings are in the context of domestic violence and not the particular offence. I hope the committee members would support this, as this request for amendment follows the recommendations of experts.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Our government agrees with the objective of this amendment. We are trying to achieve the same outcome, which is to expand access to testimonial aids for victims in proceedings involving intimate partner violence.
However, we cannot support this amendment as drafted. We have put forward our own amendment in G-27, which achieves the same result but does so with more clear and more consistent language across the Criminal Code, including alignment with the French version. That matters because the law has to be clear and applied consistently by the courts if we want these protections to work for victims.
This is not a disagreement in theory. We are aligned on that. It's about getting the drafting right. For those reasons, we will be voting against NDP-16 and moving G-27 to ensure that victims receive the protections they need to fully participate in the justice process.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.
Shall NDP-16 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This takes us to G-27.
I assume you will speak to it, Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
G-27 proposes to amend clause 39, which would amend section 486.2 of the Criminal Code to make testimony behind a screen or outside of the courtroom by CCTV or other means presumptively available for victims in proceedings related to an offence committed by an intimate partner.
This amendment would require a consequential amendment to subclause 2(1) in order to remove the reference to section 486.2 from proposed subsection 3.01(2). Expanding the availability of testimonial aids to all intimate partner offences recognizes that power imbalances and fear can affect a victim's ability to testify, even in the context of non-violent crimes, since other unreported abuse may be present.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-27 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 40)
We'll start with G-28.
Ms. Lattanzio, go ahead.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Again, it's the same reasoning just mentioned for G-27.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-28 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 40 as amended agreed to)
We're now on the new clause 40.1 with NDP-17.
Ms. Kwan, go ahead.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
This amendment is based on a recommendation from the National Association of Women and the Law to ensure that victims are not at risk of criminalization for breach of a publication ban whose purpose is to protect the victims themselves. While past legislation has responded to concerns raised by survivors about this issue, experts tell us that these measures have proven to be overly narrow and that this remains a major risk for victims.
With this in mind, I urge colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment to uphold victims' rights and to ensure that survivors of violence are not criminalized due to the same publication bans that are supposed to protect them.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I have a question for the officials.
In the proposed amendment, would this not undermine the reforms already enacted through former Bill S-12, which already allow victims and witnesses broad freedom to speak about their cases while preserving protections for other individuals whose identities remain subject to a ban?
Nathalie Levman Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, I agree that it would conflict with subsection 486.6 (1.1), which was enacted, as the member said, through former Bill S-12. That provision basically says that a victim can't be held liable for breaching a publication ban unless they “knowingly failed to comply with the order” or they compromised the “privacy interests of another person” who is also protected by a publication ban and a warning to the individual was not an “appropriate” response. Those are the safeguards that are already built into the Criminal Code to ensure broad leeway for victims to speak about what they have endured.
Thank you.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have one question.
Thank you very much to my colleague for the question and for the clarification.
I would read the proposed new language as essentially saying that the person who is failing to comply with the ban is exempt from any sanctions, even if, for example, they breach the privacy of another witness or another person who is also a victim.
Is that correct?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. That's how I read the amendment as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall NDP-17 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 41 agreed to)
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
I want to make sure that NDP-17.1 is under clause 59.