Evidence of meeting #20 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I just want to say that it's very logical and consistent with what the witnesses have said.
Conservative
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand the amendment and I completely agree with the idea. However, there is one question I have when I compare the text of the bill I have before me with the text proposed in the amendment. The latter would specify that it is an offence "in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted". Wouldn't circumscribing the offence in this way have the effect of excluding other situations that might otherwise be included?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the bill as currently drafted does not impose any restrictions. I'm not saying that it will if these words related to violence are added, but it qualifies the offence, as if a condition were added.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Sonia's hand is up, but I'd like to pass this over to Shannon.
Shannon, what would the impact of this be on this bill and the Criminal Code?
Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law and Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
As I had mentioned, the focus of these amendments in relation to the bill's provisions is to define the situations in which the judge is obligated to consider imposing this question, so the effect of making this amendment would actually be to.... There is a list of offences in paragraph subsection 515(4.3) of the Criminal Code. It lists certain offences, or offence groups, for which the judge has to consider imposing the conditions that are listed in subsection (4.2).
Those are offences, like a terrorism offence, criminal harassment and intimidation. It does currently list “an offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened, or attempted”. There are also offences in relation to the Security of Information Act.
By making this amendment and slightly narrowing the situations in which a judge would have to consider imposing this condition, it brings it more into alignment with the other types of offences that are currently listed in the Criminal Code, which trigger the imposition of these specific conditions.
It also lines it up with the considerations that a justice must make, which I mentioned before. There were three of them, and one of them was related to safety, so it links it to that safety aspect.
It's true that there are other situations where there might have been an offence against an intimate partner that could indicate there was a concern about violence, but, as I mentioned before, the judge could still impose it in those situations, so it doesn't take away the ability to impose it in those situations. It just helps narrow the focus for the way this section of the Criminal Code tends to be used.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I really do appreciate this feedback.
What you're describing is what you're going to see in here. As you said, it's narrowing it, but it's also getting it very focused on what we need to do, which is to talk about the violence—sexual, physical, and abusive—we're seeing in intimate partner violence. It's just narrowing down on IPV.
Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law and Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Also, note that the wording that's proposed in the amendment is “violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted”, so in the Criminal Code that would include other things, like uttering threats, criminal harassment, and those other types of things. Violence isn't just physical violence.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I'd like to go back to Sonia as the person who brought it forward.
Do you have any last comments?
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Yes, absolutely.
As we heard, this change continues to advance the objectives of the bill, and judges will still be able to impose electronic monitoring for any offence where it is more appropriate, as the bill seeks to do under the existing powers. As with all aspects of criminality, we need to ensure that measures do not have any negative consequences.
With that, Madam Chair, I would be happy to go to a vote if there is no more discussion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
That is not a problem.
I am going to ask for a recorded vote on LIB-1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are a unanimous kind of a committee today. Way to go, everybody.
Shall clause 1 carry as amended?
Do we have a recorded vote on this one?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Philippe is telling me what to do, and he really knows.
Shall clause 1 carry as amended?
We will have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move to new clause 1.1. The amendment is LIB-2.
Ms. Sidhu, can you please share it with us?
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Madam Chair, we are proposing a new clause, which Pam will speak to.
Over to you, Pam.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I know that Jennifer Kagan is watching right now. This was the amendment that Jennifer and Philip felt very strongly should be brought forward in the bill. It will include the requirement that a new judge undertakes to take training on intimate partner violence and coercive control.
There's another thing that this amendment does. You'll notice that the wording is different from what is already in the bill in another clause. I'd like to just explain that to colleagues.
It originally was just “intimate partner violence” and “coercive control”. We're proposing that since coercive control doesn't exist in the Criminal Code, it be defined to include “in intimate partner and family relationships”, and that the words appear prior to the words “social context”. It would ensure that social context is taken into account not only under sexual assault law but also in intimate partner violence and coercive control.
This would add a new clause to the bill that's not there now. It does bring it in line with what the original Judges Act contemplated—that new judges would undertake to take training and that seminars would be provided for current judges.
I think it follows the intent of the original Judges Act, which we passed unanimously. I'd like to ask colleagues to support including this clause and recognize why the additional wording around coercive control is there as well as moving it in front of “social context” to reflect testimony that we heard.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Thanks very much, Pam.
I'm going to pass it over to you, Shannon, to give us a look at how this would apply to the Criminal Code. If it's admissible, everything's good and everything's in line, please let me know.
Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law and Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry. I think I was looking at the wrong one in the package. Are we looking at LIB-3 right now?
Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law and Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Oh. Okay. Thank you very much.
As this one would amend the Judges Act, I will ask my colleague from judicial affairs, Melissa Moor, if she could answer this question, please.
Melissa Moor Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Certainly. Thank you, Shannon.
As the member noted, this new clause that's being proposed to the bill would expand the undertaking that's currently found in section 3 of the Judges Act. At the moment, the undertaking in the Judges Act relates to seminars on sexual assault law and social context. It means that in order to be eligible for an appointment to a provincial superior court as a judge, a candidate must undertake to participate in continuing education on sexual assault law and social context.
From my understanding of this proposed amendment that would add a new clause to the bill, it would expand that undertaking so that a candidate seeking judicial appointment to a provincial superior court would also be required to undertake to participate in continuing education on intimate partner violence and coercive control.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Thank you very much.
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.”
Unfortunately, I believe this is outside the scope of the bill, after the support I've had from the clerks and people working in this. In the opinion of the chair, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, since the conditions of the appointment of judges is not envisioned in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Go ahead, Andréanne.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I would like to mention that, for a while, there was no interpretation, because the interpreter said he did not have the text.
Could you repeat what you said?