Status of Women Committee on May 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following at page 770: "An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, since the conditions of appointment of judges is not envisioned in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

We also have to recognize that there will be many opportunities. I think this bill creates an excellent foundation, in addition to what we have seen from the previous bills, when we talk about the Judges Act. I think we need to continue to work on this, but, unfortunately, we won't be able to speak on this today.

(On clause 2)

Everybody, we're on clause 2, LIB-3. If the sponsor of LIB-3.... Let's see who that may be.

I'm going to pass it to Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sidhu, could you introduce it, please?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, Pam is speaking on that, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Go ahead, Pam.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I spoke to previously, it's moving the wording “intimate partner violence” and “coercive control” so that it precedes the words “social context”, as well as adding “coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships and social context”.

The French wording needs to be corrected, too, because the term “intimate partner violence” is currently used throughout the bill. Use of the term “family violence” in the French text of the bill would create inconsistencies within the bill and corresponding legislation.

I'm checking whether I have the French words that should be here.

We should modify the French version of the bill to mirror the English, as that would be consistent with the other provisions of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Let's deal with the English and French issue first, and then we'll get to equality and everything to do with that.

To the legislative clerk, can we...? I don't know if you're the one answering on this, but when it comes to a change in the wording, what should we do, sir?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do you have the wording already, by any chance?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Do I have the wording? I'm looking at the French version, but I don't read French well enough.

I'm wondering whether the officials can provide us with the wording that should reflect the English in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'm also going to look to Virginie.

Virginie, can you...?

She's excellent on French and English.

Is there something you would suggest, too?

We're going to go to the officials, but if there's something we can think of within our group—words or something like that, as well...I'm going to pass it over.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm taking a look, since I'm thinking on my feet on this one. I'm taking a look to see if I had any suggestions for how exactly that would be worded.

[Claire Farid, Director and General Counsel, Family and Children’s Law Team, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Shannon, if I could jump in, I think it was “violence entre partenaires intimes”.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

Thanks, Claire.

That's how it's already used in the other parts of the bill, so this would make it consistent with the terminology in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay, Pam. Did you want to provide it to.... Do you want to read it into the record, or what would you like to do? What's the best thing to do?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

The wording should be “violence entre partenaires intimes”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Is that the only difference there? According to Philippe, that is what's there from the original.

[Philippe Méla]

I'm not sure if we are looking at the same thing.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

No, right now where we say “intimate partner violence”, here it says “violence familale”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

You would need to replace “violence familiale” in the French with “violence entre partenaires intimes”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Just give me a second, I do have something here. We are working with this because it is the difference between “violence familiale” and “intimate partners”.

We are just going to work on that, everybody, so just one moment.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

In the clause itself, it's written “violence entre partenaires intimes”.

It's just in the recommended change that it's written differently, so perhaps we could use the wording that's already in the clause itself and replace the amendment with the correct words.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Perfect. I know Philippe is just working on it just now, so we will come back with the suggestion, but thank you very much, Emmanuella. That's what we have seen as well, so thank you.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the English version, the first line reads “al assault law, intimate partner violence”, and that's where the problem lies.

In French, the line starts with “sexuelles, à la violence familiale”, whereas it should be “sexuelles, à la violence entre partenaires intimes”. It is therefore a question of replacing “violence familiale” with “violence entre partenaires intimes”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay. I see that's a pretty clear suggestion. I know Emmanuella has brought it up. It's just ensuring that “family violence” is not used in French in that part of the clause. We want to make sure it's “intimate partner violence”.

The change would be “violence entre partenaires intimes”.

That would be what we're looking at.

I think the discussion is pretty simple on this one because I do believe that we'd all be in agreement. We'd just need to accept the subamendment to ensure that the French version is in line with the English version.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think it's a subamendment. Ms. Damoff moved it at the same time, so it's included in the original version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

So there's no reason to have a vote on this. We're good to go on that amendment when it comes to the French language.