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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Madam Chair, can I just ask for stats?
Do we have any stats on this program? I would be really interested in that.
11:55 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
My apologies. Which program do you want stats on?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
On the programs that are being used right now with indigenous people, do we have stats?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is how we can incorporate something that works in the system for everyone. That's my question. If we have stats, that would help clear up my answers. It would help prove that maybe we need to shift our thinking.
11:55 a.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Just so I'm clear, are you talking about statistics with respect to the Gladue sentencing provision in the Criminal Code—how many offenders have been subject to that particular provision, and whether they have reoffended?
Is that the question?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Yes, I'm looking for statistics to prove that this program works for repeat offenders.
Noon
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would have to double-check with the department to see what statistics they have on it.
I could undertake to get back to the committee on that.
Noon
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Next, we have Dominique.
I'll remind the members that if they want to pose a question, they can raise their hand.
Noon
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Moore, could you provide some background on the Gladue decision? You're familiar with it, aren't you?
Noon
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
You are referring to the Gladue principle at sentencing, I believe.
Noon
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Where does this principle come from? How does this decision give rise to special considerations?
Noon
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's a rule at sentencing that requires that the judge consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment. If they are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims and the community, it should be considered for all offenders, with particular emphasis on aboriginal offenders.
For example, rather than imposing incarceration, judges can recommend restorative justice practices agreed to be followed by the offender based on their specific community beliefs: for example, community healing circles.
Noon
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Chair, my question was more about the background of the Gladue decision. Was an indigenous person charged? What was the basis of the case?
Noon
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The facts of the original case originate from 1995. The woman's name was Jamie Tanis Gladue. She was a 19-year-old Cree woman who stabbed and killed her common-law husband at the time in Nanaimo, British Columbia. Ms. Gladue was extremely intoxicated at the time of the stabbing, double the legal limit, and had a dispute with her partner before the incident. She herself had been a victim of domestic abuse. That was an important factor for the court.
She was charged with second-degree murder but ended up pleading guilty to manslaughter. The judge at the time found that she would benefit significantly from treatments for substance abuse and further counselling and treatment.
It's quite a long history, but that gives you some background to the case itself.
Noon
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Thank you.
If there are no more interventions, shall NDP-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we have G-6.
Lisa, go ahead.
Noon
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
What G-6 would do is add a condition that would prohibit the defendant “from going to any specified place or being within a specified distance of any specified place”, and it would remove the condition requiring the defendant “to refrain from using social media”.
I would like to actually go to the officials, if I could, Madam Chair, to have them explain why these two parts of this amendment would be preferable.
Noon
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Just for context, proposed subsection 810.03(7) of the bill lists a certain number of optional conditions that a judge can impose on the defendant, in addition to any other reasonable condition.
The radius condition that's being proposed here in this amendment refers to the condition at proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(c) on page 3 of the bill, which currently requires the defendant “to refrain from going to any specified place, except in accordance with any specified conditions that the judge considers necessary”.
This motion would amend that paragraph to further prohibit the defendant from going “within a specified distance of [a] place”. The effect of the amendment would be to essentially allow the imposition of a radius around the intimate partner or child's home within which the defendant would be prohibited from entering. For example, the condition could be that the defendant not attend within 500 metres of the victim's home. The idea is really to prevent the defendant from, let's say, sitting in a car outside the victim's home. The defendant wouldn't be technically in breach, but it sort of gets back to that coercive, controlling behaviour.
That is the rationale or the effect of the amendment with respect to proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(c).
Would you like me to also explain proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(f)?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Yes, please. I believe we already have provisions in the Criminal Code that prevent a defendant from contacting the victim. I'm wondering why we would need something extra in there and if there would be....
I also know that social media can be used to stalk women, so I want to be able to keep women as safe as possible. I understand that “social media” is sort of a broad term, so I'd really like to understand the rationale behind that.
12:05 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. This amendment would also remove the condition “to refrain from using social media” under proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(f).
The Criminal Code is quite clear that any conditions imposed on someone in this peace bond context must be reasonable and linked to ensuring the good conduct of the defendant or the safety of the informant or the intimate partner.
The courts have said that there must be a very clear nexus between the condition that's being imposed and what you're trying to protect or prevent. A breach of a peace bond condition, as I mentioned earlier, could result in a new criminal offence for up to four years. That's why it's very important to ensure that any condition imposed is not overly broad.
The use of social media could be interpreted narrowly, or it could be interpreted very broadly by the courts to include things like job searches online or shopping for second-hand furniture. While some specific uses of social media may, in some cases, be linked to a specific threat posed by the defendant, in many cases it might not be linked to any specific threat, and a breach of that condition would still result in imprisonment of potentially up to four years.
The court could still impose.... The court has this sort of residual basket power to impose any reasonable condition that is necessary. The court could still craft a condition limiting social media use if that was relevant in that particular case, but removing it from this list would ensure that it's not routinely imposed in an overly broad way.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thanks so much.
Lisa, thanks so much for asking that question. Understanding the social media part is really important here, I think.
As parliamentarians, I think we all know that it doesn't matter if it's intimate partner violence or whatever it may be. Stalking is just so apparent all the time on social media. This is one of my concerns. We do know that social media can be used as a tool when it comes to coercive control. We know that people make up fake accounts and all these things.
Is there anything in this bill that would protect a victim from social media abuse? Is there anything in here? I know that you indicated that a judge could add more, but with it not being in here, perhaps they could miss it altogether. I just want to hear more on that, if you don't mind.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal