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.
11:25 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Each of the peace bonds that currently exist in the code can be ordered for a period not exceeding 12 months. That's the current wording in the code.
The more specialized peace bonds that I mentioned—such as organized crime, forced marriage, sexual offences against a minor and terrorism—have this additional provision that says the peace bond can be ordered for up to two years if there's a prior conviction.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to say that I appreciate this debate and this discussion. I do think we need to set the standard as legislators, and I do think we have to do everything possible to keep women safe.
Given some of the language I've heard today, I just want to clarify. I think the officials pointed this out. We're talking about a peace bond. This is before someone has necessarily been convicted of any crime, so we can't call them criminals. I think it's an important part of the justice system. I think this is a good debate and a good thing to talk about, but let's keep this in mind. This is something that happens before the court process, so these aren't necessarily people who have been found guilty of anything. At the same time, it is something to keep women safe if they have accused someone of domestic violence.
I think it's a good discussion, but I'd just like us all to keep in mind the principles of our justice system and that we don't call people criminals if they haven't been convicted of any crime.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I have a question for the officials.
You were saying you can reapply at 12 months. My deep concern with that is the significant backlog in our justice system. If you can't get in, if there's a backlog and the period of 12 months lapses, you are in an extremely vulnerable position. What is in this legislation, or what is in the justice system as a safeguard, to ensure that this time doesn't lapse? If you're put in a queue—and we know there are people who have cases that sit for years and years—that would be a very big concern to me based on how backlogged our justice system is.
What is your response to that?
11:25 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I appreciate the concern. Certainly there are well-known delays throughout the criminal justice system across Canada; it really depends on the jurisdiction.
For peace bonds, there's nothing preventing someone from going in early to get ahead of the delay. Also, there was an amendment passed by one of the earlier motions that would allow for other people to bring the peace bond on the intimate partner's behalf. That could also assist if there's trouble with transportation or getting to the core, or remote areas and things like that.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
My concern is that all the work falls on the victim. That's what I'm hearing. It's the victim's responsibility, again, to do this legwork because the system is broken. That's the other concern.
If we change the number to what we had originally said, I think we would avoid this issue. Actually, we would probably help de-clog the justice system, because most people are going to go back in. You can also remove a peace bond and that will be fine. To me, it's not adding up that the onus is falling on the victim to do this work when they're dealing with a myriad of issues. When you have these conversations with victims, a lot of them are so stressed they don't want go in public because they're afraid. Now they have to make these appointments and be proactive maybe three months into the peace bond because they don't know how long the delay will be.
Again, it's not adding up for me to help the victim with this amendment.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, can you tell us whether there's a time limit for comments?
I gather that there isn't. Thank you.
I want to point out that, last week, in Quebec, a femicide or something similar took place. I won't elaborate, but a pregnant woman was murdered. I would like us to keep that in mind.
I have a question for the legal experts. There seems to be a great deal of interest in sticking to what already exists. In some situations, the period could be increased to twelve months. We all understood this. Is the goal to avoid being stricter or further restricting the rights of people subject to a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810 of the Criminal Code?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I gather that a recognizance to keep the peace doesn't force a person to do anything other than keep the peace, which everyone must do under normal circumstances. The person can continue to work, go about their business and enjoy their leisure time. If it takes something away from the person, I want someone to explain exactly what that entails. In my opinion, it doesn't take anything away from the person. It just gives the victim more protection and a safer environment.
11:30 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you for your comments.
If the courts restrict the freedom of people subject to a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810, they mainly focus on the conditions that must be met. For example, a person may have to wear a remote monitoring device, refrain from using social media, provide samples for analysis, abstain from using drugs, and so on. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can result in imprisonment for up to four years.
There are serious consequences for failing to comply with these conditions.
There is sort of a hold of the state over the person while they're subject to the peace bond, which could have significant consequences for them if they breach a condition of the peace bond. In that sense, given that there hasn't been a criminal offence committed yet, the courts have said that yes, the government may legislate in the area of preventative justice. Usually we legislate in the area of punishing people for things they did, but this is kind of a unique area where we're actually preventing a crime from occurring. We need to make sure the courts have said that we're not being overly restrictive on the liberty, given that they haven't actually committed an offence yet.
Some of these principles have underlined how the conditions are imposed, and the duration of the peace bond.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thanks so much.
I just want to go back. Ms. Moore, you talked about the peace bond in the Criminal Code when it comes to sexual assault, terrorism and things like that, and the fact that there are additional clauses.
Is there something in here that I'm not seeing where, if someone has had a past conviction, their bond would be greater than 12 months? Is it 12 months right from the start? You talked about those other clauses that have these extensions. Do we see something like that in this bill for past convictions?
11:35 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. On page 2 of the bill, under clause 2, proposed subsection 810.03(3) sets the maximum period for the peace bond currently at two years. Proposed subsection 810.03(4) would allow that period to go up to three years if there's a prior conviction for intimate partner violence.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Sorry, I just want to go back to this.
I'm looking at recognizance. You're talking about page 2, line 20. I'm looking at proposed subsection 810.03(3), lines 21, 22, 23 and 24. The part here that we are changing is going to 12 months, from “not more than two years”.
I just want to verify that, because that was part of the change of this amendment. I thought this amendment was reducing it to 12 months and not for a period of not more than two years.
11:35 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The current bill says two years. This motion would amend lines 22 and 23 to specify that it's 12 months instead of two years for the recognizance order.
If you go down to line 30, the motion would change it from three years to two years for what they call “Duration extended”. Essentially, it's the situation where you have a longer peace bond because of a prior conviction.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you.
I want to address a couple of things.
Michelle, you commented on everything being left up to the victim. I actually think that's a really important piece. It's important that the voices of people who are victims should centre everything. I think taking away the voice of victims is not something we want to do. I understand the sentiment, but I think it's important that victims have that choice in terms of what they need to centre their safety. I understand that the sentiment behind it is to support victims, but I do think that's an important piece that we can't lose sight of.
I just want to go back to the senator. It was very hard for me to listen to the senator's story. I think all of us around the circle want to see something pass, because he did it in honour of his daughter. That's not lost on me.
My concern is that around the committee table I think we are not in agreement with how it's going to look. I do have concerns that if we don't get the amendments in, it's not going to pass in the House of Commons. Then he'll be left with nothing. I have a deep concern about that. He deserves to have that bill passed. It is up to us to negotiate a bill that works within the confines of the existing laws.
I do want to see this passed in the House of Commons, even for the women who came forward. Being survivors of violence and sharing their stories is very difficult to do. I understand the kind sentiments around the committee table for that as well.
However, we're running out of time. At the committee, we're talking about violence. We are running out of time to do studies, including one that I put forward on a “red dress alert”, if we're talking about coming up with strategies to deal with violence that will save lives in real time.
I'm just speaking honestly. I think we work very well as a committee, but if it goes through without amendments, I don't think it's going to look like what any of us want. We'll all lose, and the person who will especially lose will be the senator. I have a really hard time with that. I would be really sad for him if that happened. I just wanted to share that, just being mindful of the time to make amendments and get this through.
Thank you.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
I'm going back to what Lisa said about how they're not convicted yet. I get that. The reason I bring this up is that a few years ago, I was volunteering and a young lady came up to me and said she had been sexually assaulted. She went to the hospital and did all the reports, all the procedures and all the tests that she needed to prove that she had been sexually assaulted and beaten. The individual—I call him a criminal, even though he hasn't been charged—said to her while he was abusing her, “If you speak out, I will go after your family.” She decided to go to the hospital and report the crime, and while she was in there and everything was being followed through, he did. He went after her sister.
I guess I don't understand the law, so I apologize for my ignorance. When we have concrete evidence of a woman having been assaulted, and threatened at the same time, how do we in this committee protect those victims from those criminals?
Someone can apply on your behalf for a peace bond against anyone if you have reasonable grounds to fear that they'll cause harm or injury to you, your intimate partner or your child, damage your property or share an intimate image or video of you without your consent. It doesn't have to be someone you're in a relationship with. It could be anyone.
How can we ensure that these...? To me, they're criminals. I know they haven't been charged.
What more proof does that woman have to get to get her point across? That is my question, because I don't know.
11:40 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would say that if there was a situation where someone, hypothetically, had been assaulted and went to the police, charges would typically be laid at that point.
The peace bond regime tends to be for situations where there hasn't been an offence yet, but there's threatening conduct or coercive control issues that would lead a woman to think that she might be assaulted in the future, for example, or that her child might be harmed.
If there was proof of.... Proof could be in the sense of testimony from a victim that she had already been harmed. At that point, charges would likely be laid and the person would have to go on bail. There would be conditions they'd have to follow if they were released on bail or detained until a trial.
