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.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
If there are no more interventions, can we call the question?
Shall G-12 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 8)
We are on G-13.
I will ask if the member wants to move it.
Lisa.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Once again, it's another consequential amendment, this one of G-3. It is a measure for consistency and has to be moved, because we moved G-3.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Thank you.
Again, I would put this back to our analysts here. I guess the question then becomes, what did G-3 change about the bill? If this is just reinforcing G-3 through consistency, what did G-3 do to the bill?
12:55 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The part of G-3 that is being reflected here is just the change that was made to allow another person to bring a peace bond on the intimate partner's behalf. There's some updating to this provision—which is a transitional provision—to reflect that change made in G-3.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Can you clarify what “another person” means?
12:55 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would allow, for example, a police officer to bring the peace bond on behalf of the intimate partner, or it could be a support person, such as an intimate partner's sister. Someone who's close to the intimate partner could bring the peace bond on her behalf.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
How do you prevent somebody who may have bad intentions or is doing coercive control to the victim from bringing forth the peace bond?
12:55 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The judge needs to assess the peace bond. They will bring all the parties into the courtroom to assess whether or not they're going to order the peace bond. They look at whether there's a reasonable fear and whether that reasonable fear is objective from the perspective of a third person—another person. It's not just based on the subjective fear of the person. If someone comes in and says, “I fear this person, because they've been threatening me”, the judge will need to assess whether it's objectively verifiable.
That acts as a check on the process to ensure the peace bond is being ordered for the right reasons.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
When, in other legislation, has language like this been used?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I have a point of order on relevance.
We already passed G-3. We already passed this language. We already discussed it, so I think we're just spinning our wheels.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I don't think that's a point of order. I think it's just—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Thank you for raising that.
Officials, thank you.
I see that Karen has been waiting for a long time.
Go ahead, Karen.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'm sorry about that. I know we're getting right to the end.
Lisa, thanks for that intervention.
At the same time, there is one thing. Maybe I've just read too many James Patterson novels or something. When it states, “fears on reasonable grounds that another person”.... That's why I want to get into this.
I'm looking at the time. We may have to talk about this on Thursday.
Could “another person” mean...? I don't know. Maybe someone is hired to kill somebody. That's some of my thought about this, because we were looking at that relationship with intimate partners. Specifically, in this clause, “another person”.... I recognize that we need things close, but the way I'm reading it seems extraordinarily broad, because that other person may not be the intimate partner.
Perhaps you could give me clarification on that. As I said, it's kind of cherry-picking. As you know, everybody cherry-picks. I'm just looking at whether people get something like this. Could there be any issues with “another person” when we're talking about intimate partners specifically?
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I believe the provision would read, “If an information has been laid under subsection 810(1)...before the day on which this Act comes into force by a person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury”. “Another person” is referring to anyone whom they fear and who could be subject to the peace bond, which is consistent with how all the other peace bonds in the Criminal Code are currently drafted.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I'm noticing the clock. It's past one o'clock, so I make a motion to adjourn.
1 p.m.
Liberal