Evidence of meeting #91 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I essentially had the same question.
If the aim is to protect women, why are we reducing the term of recognizance? Is it because we've had flexibilities elsewhere? I'm just trying to understand what the rationale is for reducing it substantially from three years to not more than 12 months.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I have Andréanne, followed by Lisa, and then I think Sonia wants to....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
No. What I'll do is give you the floor as we go through.
We have Andréanne, followed by Lisa and Sonia.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
The questions have been raised.
As I understand it, the original version of Bill S‑205 stipulates that the defendant must keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than two years. Under this amendment, the period would change to 12 months, so I would like to understand the reasons for that.
What's the relationship to severity and consequences? Can one of the experts explain it to us? What is safer for victims? I will listen to what the experts have to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I know we'll be coming back to the two of you a lot, so we'll try to get some information out here.
We'll go to Lisa, Sonia, Michelle and Dominique, and then we'll go over to our experts.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The way I understand this amendment, it would drop the peace bond time lag to put it more in line with other laws that are already on the books.
I'm wondering also if the experts in the room could explain to us if it's important to bring our peace bond requirements in line with other laws and the rest of the Criminal Code. What sort of effect would that have?
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Madam Chair, I think if the official can explain, then we'll see after that. I think the official can explain it very well.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Again, I defer to my very esteemed colleague, Ms. Lewis, with her legal background of being a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. If I'm clear, the amendment that has been put forward by Ms. Sidhu is saying 12 months instead of two years, which is reducing it. That just doesn't make sense when we're here and we're supposed to be fighting for victims.
I can't get my head wrapped around this. I want to read into the record a little bit more because it is critical that we have the victim testimony on file.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
We've heard the victim testimony. We all heard it. I don't know if it's a good use of our time to re-hear it.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
That's wild, that you don't want to listen to victims. I think we're here for victims, so it's absolutely—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
As the chair, I will say that I am sorry, but I do believe it's fine to listen to witness testimony. That's how we're backing up our amendments.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
This is the victim testimony that was given to us by Ms. Martine Jeanson. She said:
Over the past 20 years, I've worked with hundreds of women who needed help. There is no way to hide them. Men can track them down at their place of work or through their family. They can follow children to school or to their friends' homes. The man will never stop stalking them, following them, harassing them and harming them. Until an electronic bracelet is required, women and their children will never be protected. Electronic bracelets may not be perfect, but that's all we have for the time being. We have no protection. That's why we are asking you, on behalf of all women, to pass the bill.
Again, I'm not clear on why we want to reduce time for criminals. It makes no sense.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I completely agree with Ms. Ferreri, and I don't think we are being unreasonable. The people who are here with a—
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Gazan, I thought you were going to give me a hard time. You don't have translation. Okay.
Are we good for translation now?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
We aren't being unreasonable over here. I just don't understand why the time periods listed in G‑5 are going from two years to 12 months, from three years to two years, and from two years to 12 months.
I've always found it funny that section 810 of the Criminal Code requires the defendant to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a set period of time. They should have to do that their whole life. Nevertheless, if we are going to set a time limit, I implore my fellow members not to go lower—unless someone tells me that this squarely contradicts another part of the bill, as Ms. Ferreri raised. This is already a minimal period of time.
Thank you.
