Status of Women Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

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

I can't remove a francophone's right to be a part of this process. That is a right and privilege. It's a fundamental right of this Parliament for francophones to have the same information before them as we do, so even upon retracting, I don't think that's my right, as an anglophone, to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

There's some excellent insight here, because that's exactly where Emmanuella was working from, the fact that this is the legal.... This is the way they have interpreted it. This way is taking the entire context of the bill, and those are the words they have put in there.

I absolutely recognize what you're saying, that the words that legal has used and the words that perhaps Dominique, Andréanne and Emmanuella would feel more.... I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if it's more comfortable or not. I hear you.

We can't vote on the substance of the bill until we get through the subamendment. The subamendment has to be voted on first.

They are indicating that we can vote on it because.... Honestly, from what I'm hearing, we can vote on it because it does not have the support anyway. It does not matter how it's written. That's what I'm hearing from the discussion.

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

We're not allowed to put forward anything in this committee if it's not in both official languages. It can't even be discussed until it's been given to everyone in both official languages, so I don't understand why we're even discussing this subamendment and why we're even allowing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

It is in both official languages. It has been submitted and it is in writing.

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

Okay. If it is, we get to vote on it and that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Okay.

I have one more point of order and then we'll go.

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

I didn't know you could say how many points of order a person can make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

No, it's okay. It's all good.

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

My question, though, is this: Are we voting on an accurately translated document, for the purposes of my francophone colleagues?

Is it an accurately translated document, or is there still a problem with the translation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

It has been fully translated and reviewed by the legal department. They are the ones who have gone through it. It's gone to the exact people who make the final decision on this wording. If we were to go back to them, they would probably indicate that these are the words of choice that may be similar.

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

I'm going to withdraw my subamendment at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We need a motion. Can we get a UC motion to withdraw the subamendment?

(Subamendment withdrawn)

We will now move on to G-3.

Sonia, I'm going to throw the floor over to you. I believe we started having this discussion and it was already moved by you. Now we're dealing with G-3 unamended.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, I said it before, and I am happy to read the rationale again.

First of all, this would allow a peace officer, family friend or loved one who reasonably believes that 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 that victims of intimate partner violence often do not report abuse, for many reasons, including fear of their abuser.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Before I start taking the name list, because this is where we came back to, when we're looking at this, we're looking at page 4, “Fear of domestic violence” and proposed section 810.03.

If everyone could be looking at G-3, the reference is 12748845. This is where we're having those discussions about the words “another person” being put in to replace “intimate partner”. I know there were some discussions when people were confusing the subamendment with the amendment.

Let's get into this one. This is where that language is being changed on this one, as we were talking about earlier.

Does anyone want to speak to G-3?

Go ahead, Michelle.

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

If I am correct in what I'm reading for Ms. Sidhu's amendment, she wants to replace lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:

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

What is she asking to remove? The way it's written here.... I guess I'm just asking for clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'm going to read it into the record so we know what we're comparing. It's apples versus oranges here.

The original content is:

A person who fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner may lay an information before a provincial court judge.

Sonia had put forward the following amendment:

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

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

Through you, Chair, can I ask Ms. Sidhu if she could give us a reason for why she's put forward this change? Am I able to do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Absolutely.

Sonia, you have the floor.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

When I add this, it also removes some elements of the proposed peace bond, such as those relating to timelines and allowing submissions from the informant regarding conditions to be imposed on the defendant, to bring the procedure in line with the other peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code.

These elements would not only ensure consistency with other elements of the Criminal Code provisions, but they would also ensure that the proposed IPV-specific peace bonds are able to work as intended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Sonia, I'm sorry. I should have added more to that because I only talked about proposed section 810.03. Thank you very much.

As Sonia indicated, if you're continuing to look on page 2, clause 2, G-3, it will appear that clause 2 impacts proposed subsection 810.03(5), “Timeliness”. G-3 impacts that.

G-3 impacts “Conditions in recognizance” on page 3. It impacts the beginning, as well as proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(e) under that one. Then, if you're looking, G-3 has impacts on page 4 under “Submissions from the informant”, “Surrender”, “Reasons”, “Variance of conditions”, “Safety and security of informant”, and “Form”.

G-3 actually is throughout. It has implications on three different pages of this bill.

We'll start with Gazan, followed by Ferreri, followed by.... Oh, Michelle was still speaking.

Michelle, you still have the floor, and then I'll go on to the others.

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

I guess my question is, why are we amending this bill so heavily and pulling out critical terms that consult victims and protect victims? We've had victim testimony that specifically asked for this to be passed unamended.

We also had Keira's law, Bill C-233, for which we did some pretty amazing work in this committee. Keira's stepfather, who's a lawyer, testified in this committee and said to leave the bill as is.

Diane Tremblay, who testified here at meeting 86, said the following:

If my abuser had been required to wear an electronic bracelet under a recognizance order pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code, as proposed in Senator Boisvenu's bill, my children and I would have been safer and I wouldn't have had to go through these attempted murders. Believe me, you don't emerge unhurt from an attempted murder. You suffer the after-effects for life.

She went on to say, along with the other—

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I have a point of order. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the amendment we're studying right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Overruled. I think it's absolutely relevant.

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

It's really relevant because this bill is being plucked apart, but we have testimony that has said to leave it the way it is. We've had testimony from a lawyer whose own stepdaughter was murdered as a result of intimate partner violence, who said to leave this bill the way it is—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that maybe the officials can comment on their opinions with regard to amendment G-3. Maybe Ms. Ferreri can get the answer from them. They can explain.