Evidence of meeting #92 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Okay. This is the one with “refrain from going to any specified place”.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
On “refrain from going to any specified place or being within a specified distance”, should “or” not be “and”?
12:45 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This is a technical drafting question. My understanding is that the “or” is interpreted as “and” as well. If you say, “going to any specified place or being within a specified distance”, the defendant would have to comply with both of those things.
Does that make sense?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Are you asking if it's “of” versus “or”? Is that what you're asking, Anna?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
No. I'm asking if it should be “and” instead of “or”, but she says it applies to both.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I like when you read it. I know where you are when you read it.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Are there any more questions?
Shall G-11 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 7)
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
We're coming to clause 7 and amendment G-12.
I'll ask a member if they want to move it.
Lisa.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you.
It's another consequential amendment of G-6. For my colleague Ms. Ferreri, I'll read it out.
I move that Bill S-205, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following:
810.01(4.1)(g), 810.03(7)(h), 810.011(6)(f), 810.1(3.02)(i) and
That's basically it.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Chair, can I ask for a brief suspension with my team for a second?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Can I just have the analysts explain what G-12 would do to the bill?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Amendment G-12 just renumbers a reference in the bill to form 51. That form is served to someone who is required to provide a sample of a bodily substance. It's just a renumbering: (i) becomes (h). This is due to G-6, which deleted the social media condition.
Does that help?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
It does help, thank you, and thank you for your patience with this as I slowly go through lawyer school while being a member of Parliament. Obviously, you can imagine the consequences of the decisions we're making.
It's because one previous clause has been altered that you have to therefore change the number, because that has been removed. Is this correct?
12:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Chair.
When you delete a paragraph, that affects the other paragraphs after. If you get rid of (f), then (g) becomes (f), and (i) becomes (h), for example. In this situation, (i) becomes (h).
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
For folks watching at home, you can imagine how muddled and confusing this might be. I guess the bottom-line question for folks watching is, what is the consequence or implication of this on the bill itself? The bill that we're studying is to protect victims, in particular, of domestic violence. What does this do?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It provides consistency across the Criminal Code.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative