Status of Women Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's not a problem.

It's Leslyn and then Lisa. I have it all listed.

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

First, I want to thank the officials for that clarification. I think it is very important when someone sees something that appears to be an error and it's raised. I thank you for outlining exactly what happened with those paragraphs. Thank you so much.

I want to ask another point of clarification. In this paragraph, we're dealing only with the informants. I'm curious as to what the definition....

Through you, Chair, I'd like Ms. Sidhu to perhaps clarify what changing the term “informant” to “parties” does. What would “parties” include? I would think that you're just dealing specifically with the informant. What else would be included in “parties”? Why is there a necessity for the change? It's only informants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Next on my list is Lisa. Then if Sonia would like to respond, she can put up her hand.

Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

My point was actually in the same vein. The whole reason we need this amendment is that we've just passed an amendment that says we're not leaving it up to the victim to ask for a peace bond. Because we've opened it up to other parties, we need to clarify the language throughout. That's all this does. It amends the language so it conforms to the previous amendment we passed, which allows for multiple parties to apply for a peace bond on behalf of someone experiencing intimate partner violence.

That's the reason for it. It's necessary because the language will then conform with the previous amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Leslyn.

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

Could I seek some clarification on the word “parties”? My understanding is that “parties” could mean every party. Wouldn't it be better to have “party” and then “(s)”?

This clause specifically deals with the informant. The informant could literally be any of the parties and it would still be all-encompassing. When you change it to the word “parties”, it is inclusive of all the parties. I think it is an error. I'm just seeking clarification on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Before we do that, Leslyn, can I take you home so you can talk to my children so they understand these words? I really appreciate this, when you're talking about words and how important they are.

I'm going to pass it over to Chelsea and Julia, please.

[Chelsea Moore]

This provision of the new peace bond regime allows the judge to call upon the parties to come for a hearing. It's different from the first provision under proposed section 810.03. I look at the bill alongside the motion to understand and situate the change that's going to be made.

It's the provision called “Appearances”. The judge there has the obligation, once they receive the information, to call all the parties—that's the defendant and the person who made the application for the peace bond—to come to a hearing. At that point, the judge is going to hear from both sides and determine if there's been a reasonable fear.

The French version already had the word “parties” in it. The French version already had the succinct way of summarizing all of the different people who need to come. The intent here is really to just ensure consistency with the French version of the bill on this provision. That's pretty much it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Sonia, you had your hand up and then you put it back down. Did you want to comment?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, I think the official explained it very well. It's because we just meant it to allow multiple parties to apply for a peace bond. Lisa explained it very well.

I think Leslyn can understand that. It's for consistency.

I want to thank the officials.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Are there any other questions or comments on G-4?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

G-5 carries.

[An hon. member]

It's G-4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Golly gee, guys. I don't know what day it is, let alone what number we're on.

That's fantastic. Thank you so much.

Dr. Lewis, we have reference number 12767903, which is your amendment, CPC-1. I believe it has a lot of correlation with your subamendment for G-3.

Would you like to move that or not?

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

Did I not withdraw the subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You withdrew your subamendment, but you have CPC-1 as well.

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

Isn't it related? Would that not be moot now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You don't have to move it if you don't want to.

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

Was it not related to the one that I withdrew?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You're right. It has “reasonable and probable grounds”. We will move past that, then.

Can everybody turn to G-5? The mover of G-5, I believe, is Sonia.

Sonia, I'll throw you the floor for G-5, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not reading the full amendment, because the members have it.

To speak on the rationale, we all share the objective of protecting victims of intimate partner violence. We all want women and victims of intimate partner violence to be well protected by the law. There are many peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code, but it is important that we ensure consistency and coherence across the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I see Michelle, Leslyn and Andréanne.

We'll start with Michelle.

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

Again, just because I have never actually done clause-by-clause or amendments in this format before.... It's not been done like this. I just want to be sure that I know what Ms. Sidhu is putting forward. If we're on page 2, replacing line 23, where is this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

It's under “Recognizance order”.

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

Thank you so much for that.

It reads:

...the judge may order the defendant to enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than three years.

However, Ms. Sidhu is asking to amend it to say “not more than 12 months.”

Can I just ask, through you, Chair, why?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I have this list here. We have Michelle, Leslyn and Andréanne, followed by Lisa.

Sonia, if you'd like to respond, you can.

We'll go on to Leslyn.