Status of Women Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'm going to remind everybody of the etiquette when it comes to making sure that we do not have our earpieces near the microphones and making sure that we put up our hands when necessary.

If we need to direct any questions, we have both Chelsea Moore and Julia Nicol here, who will be helping us today as we're going along through this.

Play with your mics and do everything properly. Let's not bug the translators. Let's be good.

Raise your hand if you have any comments. I will be keeping a speaking order throughout the day. Members in the room, if you wish to speak, also raise your hand.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205. As a reminder, we did start it, but we had an amendment, and a lot of things go through there.

As members already know, this is an examination of all clauses of the bill in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call out each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to a clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no member wishes to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in your package. I will try to go slowly as we do this. Amendments have been given numbers, as everybody remembers. You have the numbers in the top corner.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These amendments must be submitted in writing. Just as a reminder, we do know that we need legal translation. If we're working ahead of time, let's just make sure that we're doing that.

Let's just get right to work. I think everybody is ready to get to work.

At the meeting on December 4, the committee adopted the following. We adopted clause 1 as amended by G-1 and G-2. We adopted clause 4. We adopted clause 5. We adopted clause 9, and we adopted clause 10.

(On clause 2)

We are resuming debate on clause 2 with the subamendment to amendment G-3. The subamendment was moved by Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, I'm going to pass it back over to you, because we are on the subamendment to G-3.

I will start by passing the floor over to you for discussion.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The subamendment was quite straightforward. It would be on clause 2, which would be amended by replacing line 20 on page 2 with the following: “formant has reasonable and probable grounds for the belief, the judge”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Wait one moment; I think you may be reading the wrong one.

Right now we are on reference 12766880.

Do you have that one?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I don't have that. I can get a copy of that.

Nobody sent it to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

It was distributed. Everybody should check.

To let everybody know, reference 12766880 is the subamendment to the amendment that was put forward by Sonia. This is an amendment to that. It's a subamendment to G-3. It should have been distributed to everybody. It should be in your packages.

What's the date that we can tell them?

[Dancella Boyi, Legislative Clerk]

It was sent on Friday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

It was received on Friday, so everybody should check.

We will suspend for two minutes so that everybody can get their stuff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I call the meeting back to order.

Leslyn, you have the floor.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

This subamendment pertains to the ambiguity that can be derived from a person's fear on reasonable grounds. It invokes a legal test that is usually used, which is reasonable and probable grounds. It strengthens it rather than basing it on fears. It looks at the individual's beliefs.

Fears, as you know, are very subjective. People sometimes have irrational fears based on situations, including a person's race, etc. I think this is a more neutral term that still encompasses the intent of the clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

Now I have Lisa, followed by Sonia.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would say, at first glance, that I am not in favour of this amendment because I think it puts a higher threshold on the victims of intimate partner violence when it comes to being able to access a peace bond. The original amendment G-3 would actually make it easier for victims of intimate partner violence to get a peace bond. This subamendment would put further barriers back in place.

Rather than try to make this argument myself, I'm wondering if our bureaucrats who are here in the room, our witnesses, would perhaps answer for us what they think this amendment would do to the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I have the speaking list, but I am going to allow a response, because it may answer the remainder of the questions that are coming up.

Chelsea and Julia, you have the floor.

[Julia Nicol, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Here are some points for consideration.

The subamendment relates, as was mentioned, to the tests that a woman would have to meet to get a peace bond against her intimate partner. The current tests set out in Bill S-205 and in amendment G-3 require that she establish a reasonable fear of her intimate partner causing personal injury. The subamendment that we are now discussing would require belief on reasonable and probable grounds. The language added by the subamendment is not found in the existing peace bond provisions, so it would introduce a novel concept into the peace bond regime.

The six existing peace bonds require fear on reasonable grounds, which is a test known to the court and has been found to be constitutional—for example, in the case of R. v. Budreo in the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is often cited. There is a requirement that the person have the fear—the subjective part—but there is also a requirement, which has been interpreted in case law, for the judge to objectively assess whether that fear is reasonable, so that part addresses concerns that it would be an irrational fear and so forth. Case law has addressed that and interpreted the term to identify an objective requirement that the judge assesses.

It's not really possible to speculate on exactly what the courts would say on what the difference would be by adding “probable”. One possibility, which was alluded to earlier, is that it could be harder to get the peace bond. You would have to demonstrate that you don't just fear “on reasonable grounds” but that you fear “on reasonable and probable grounds” that you will be harmed by your spouse.

I'm not sure if that helps, but those are some considerations.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

It's an extra barrier, though, to getting a peace bond.

[Julia Nicol]

As I said, it depends on how the courts will interpret this, because this is novel in the peace bond context. It's more common in relation to investigative powers—for example, warrants and so forth—which is probably where the inspiration for that term came from. We can't say for sure, but that is a possibility.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Could I have one follow-up question?

It sounds to me as if, even if it's not creating a barrier, it's creating extra complications that the legal system would have to work out.

[Julia Nicol]

It's creating something new. We would have to see what the cases coming forward would interpret it as.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you.

I'll give you the list of speakers: Sonia, Michelle, Andréanne and then Leslyn.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with my colleague, Ms. Hepfner. Further to this, the subamendment introduces a high threshold for accessing a peace bond. We need to increase options for victims, not make it harder for them to prove they need help, so I'm not in favour of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Michelle, you're next, and then it's Andréanne.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Just for clarification, Madam Chair, from our officials.... This subamendment comes from my colleague Ms. Lewis because the words “intimate partner” were removed in the original amendment from the Liberals.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Would you like Leslyn to answer?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I was actually going to ask them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Julia Nicol]

If it's about the intent, I might suggest that I'm not best placed to—