Evidence of meeting #89 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.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It really depends on what factors you'll consider when applying this provision. I can provide other factors to consider, if you want.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'll switch to English, if that's okay.
The effect of the first proposal, which would remove the consultation piece, is that it would require the bail court to ask the prosecutor if the victims had been consulted about their safety needs. In practice, this could translate into a conversation between the prosecutor and the bail justice in the courtroom about the victims' safety concerns. Some victims might welcome having their safety concerns discussed in this way, but others might feel uncomfortable with these kinds of conversations being discussed in an open court and in the accused's presence.
The current practice of bail hearings is to hear the allegations before the court and look at the past violent behaviour of the accused to determine whether bail would be appropriate based on a number of considerations, including public safety and the safety of the victim. The Crown does make submissions on the conditions to be imposed, and it's quite standard to seek out conditions to keep the accused away from the victim, such as no contact and not going to a specific place or area. Currently, there is no discussion at the bail hearing about the broader security needs of the victim. That tends to take place with victim services personnel, who sort of screen what government services they need to contact in order to establish the safety of the victim. The specific security needs of the victim are not currently discussed in open court.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I have a quick question for you. Would there be an option for her to do it privately? I hear you talking about those conditions and security in court. Would there be an opportunity for somebody to do that outside of court in an informal conversation, so it's not in the public realm but somewhere where the victim would feel safe?
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Victims don't typically appear at a bail hearing, so they wouldn't necessarily be present. It is possible, but it's uncommon, because a bail hearing takes place within 24 hours. It's sort of a cooling-off period to separate the two parties, so the victims don't usually show up.
If the Crown feels that there's a sensitive or delicate issue with respect to a victim's discussing their security needs in court, the Crown can always ask to go into chambers with the lawyer for the accused and the judge to speak about it privately. That is an option, but it wouldn't necessarily be an option for a self-represented accused.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
That really does help give us more insight, so thank you very much for that.
Are there any further questions or comments?
Is there anyone online?
Seeing none, shall G-1 carry?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Yes, of course.
We'll have a recorded vote on G-1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
That is carried, so NDP-1 is out.
Next, we have G-2.
It doesn't matter if he's not the mover, does it? He can still talk about it.
We'll give the floor to Mr. Serré.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Amendment G‑2 is fairly straightforward.
It is that Bill S‑205, in clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 23 on page 1 with the following:
tenaire intime, s'il a été auparavant condamné
It simply involves changing the words “déclaré coupable” to “condamné”. The amendment is purely practical.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Okay. It's a better way of saying that.
I'm looking at our French speakers in the room. Andréanne has her head going. Arielle has not said anything.
Emmanuella, do I see some nodding? You're good with that.
It looks like everyone is okay with the French version.
Shall G-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 2)
Would anyone like to present amendment G-3?
Go ahead, Sonia.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Yes, Madam Chair.
It is that Bill S-205, in clause 2, be amended by (a) replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:
810.03(1) Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to the intimate partner or a child of the other person, or to a child of the other person's intimate partner, may lay an information
(b) replacing lines 32 to 34 on page 2 with:
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defen-
(c) replacing line 1 on page 3 with:
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable
(d) replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with:
or to secure the safety and security of the intimate partner or a child of the defendant, or a child of the defendant's intimate partner, including condi-
(e) replacing line 20 on page 3 with—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
What we could do is.... I'm looking at what we have here. We have a lot of bits that we might want to take one chunk at a time.
We could start off with (a), then go through (b), then go through (c), if that's okay with you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Okay.
Let's start by looking at (a), which is replacing lines 9 through 12 on page 2. It's 810.03(1).
Leslyn, you have your hand up.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Yes.
Firstly, this amendment changes the entire meaning of the bill, because it's now focused on any person, rather than on the intimate partner. The original clause reads, “A person who fears”. In law, fear is a subjective test based upon a person's feelings. Applying it to “any person” objectifies it. It changes the entire meaning. You cannot say, “any person” and still be specific to that intimate partner. We are actually nullifying this entire clause by doing that.
Furthermore, go down to where it speaks about “will cause personal injury to the intimate partner”. It changes “their intimate partner” to “the intimate partner”. It could be the intimate partner of any individual.
This bill is dealing with specific people facing violence. By doing this, you're completely watering down the intent of protecting women who are in situations of violence.
Conservative
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
I can see Dr. Lewis's point, but this would allow a peace officer, family friend or loved one who reasonably believes the accused will commit an offence that will cause injury to either the victim or their children, to apply for the IPV-specific peace bond on behalf of the victim.
We know victims of IPV often don't report the abuse for many reasons, including fear of their abuser. This removes some elements of the proposed peace bond, such as those relating to timelines. It allows submissions from the informant regarding conditions to be imposed on the defendant, in order to bring the procedure in line with other peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Before I bring it back over to Leslyn, I'm going to give the floor to Chelsea and Julia for comment.
Julia Nicol Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you.
With this amendment, the intimate partner would still be able to come before the court and seek the peace bond. What it would do, though, is that it would allow others, as was said previously, to do so as well, in situations...for example, where the intimate partner may be too scared to come forward. It's very common to do it through the police and so forth.
This would also align with the wording in other peace bonds, so it would not limit what an intimate partner could do themselves. It would give a bit more flexibility, potentially, but I understand the balance you will have to make in terms of how, if you want that specific language, that would limit what is possible under this provision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
You're explaining that right now, the way it's written in the original text allows only the victim to make this request, and that this amendment, then, would allow anyone to make this request. Is that what you're saying?
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm just going to add something. Peace bonds can go two ways. A victim could bring the peace bond herself. That means she could actually fill out the form, the information, and bring it to court and bear that burden. Otherwise, the victim can go to the police and say, “This is what's happening. Can you help me with laying an information to get a peace bond going?”
As the language is currently drafted, it would be only the victim who would be able to bring the peace bond. She would be the only one who would be able to lay the information. The current peace bond provisions in the code foresee that typically it's a police officer that lays the information. The changes to the terminology would allow more flexibility, like my colleague just said, to allow a police officer to bring the information.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Thank you for that clarification, but the problem that I have is one of statutory construction. If you have this clause constructed for a person who fears, the reason you're using a less permissive test of fear, which is subjective and does not have an actus reus or a mens rea component in it.... It is basically based on that subjective fear, because you're dealing with the victim.
Here, you have taken that very permissive language and then you have applied it to anybody—anybody who has a fear—and usually when you're speaking about people who are not direct victims of something, you don't have such permissive language. You would usually say anybody “with reasonable and probable grounds”, because there's a test that would be applied.
That's my only concern there. It's that we are taking it completely outside of this very specific context—
