Status of Women Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[Chelsea Moore]

I believe it was alluded to earlier that there is a condition currently in the bill, under proposed paragraph 810.‍03(7)(e), that would require the defendant to “abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with the informant” or intimate partner.

The word “indirectly” is key here. Indirect communication could include things like liking a post on social media or commenting on social media. It could also include messages that a defendant might try to send through a third party. Any form of communication, direct or indirect, that happens via social media would still be prohibited by this particular paragraph.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Michelle, you are next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think Karen touched on a lot of what I wanted to touch on.

Through you, Madam Chair, to Lisa, I just want to clarify: Is the amendment removing “to refrain from using social media”? Is that correct? Am I reading that amendment correctly?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Yes. It's because the term “social media” is extremely broad. As the officials have explained, there are already laws and there are already provisions in this bill that would prevent anyone from stalking anyone or reaching out to anyone through social media.

It would just allow people to, for example, do job searches if they were under this condition. They would still be able to do things that may be necessary for their work but not anything that would even indirectly contact the victim.

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

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Go ahead, Anna.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

One thing I'm reading here is “refrain from going to any specified place or”.

Can we change the “or” to “and”?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Go ahead, Leah.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I just want to be clear that social media is already included in terms of contact. It doesn't say “social media”, but it's already included in contact. If they contact somebody through social media, that's still considered contact.

Which specific paragraph is it?

[Chelsea Moore]

It's proposed paragraph 810.‍03(7)(e): “abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with the informant...or any relative or close friend of the informant”.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

That actually makes sense, because there are still protections there around social media. They might have conditions to their parole that they might have to use the Internet, but that doesn't mean they can use the Internet to contact the person. It doesn't open it up. They cannot contact the person by Facebook.

Is that right? I want to be clear.

[Chelsea Moore]

That's correct. Yes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Go ahead, Michelle.

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

Thank you for this discussion.

I guess my question is this: How does this bill protect against defendants who would use a fake account? If contact is in there, which is the broad term to use for social media, I can get behind that, because it is so broad. You have texting and all these different avenues for contacting the victim. What is in place, either through this bill or the justice system, so that you can follow up, when a victim says this is happening, and actually find out?

Does that make sense, what I'm asking?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Officials, do you want to answer that?

[Chelsea Moore]

Sure.

I believe you're asking about enforcement issues: How could someone know that it's the defendant who is creating this account? I think it really depends on the issue. Enforcement is really something that falls under provincial or territorial jurisdiction, but I think contact would include any form of contact. Whether it's someone creating a fake profile and contacting the person or contacting them through someone else they know, that's still considered contact. It's quite a broad term. It has been interpreted quite broadly by the courts. It includes that word “indirectly” as well.

If a woman feels that this person is contacting her in any way, the normal procedure is that she would have to contact the Crown attorney right away to let them know of the potential breach of the provision. As I said, if there is a breach, new charges would be laid for a breach of the condition. The person could be liable for up to four years on indictment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Thank you.

Dominique.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I would leave it as it stands, Madam Chair.

I understand all the explanations, which are full of common sense. However, a judge is bound to use good judgment and common sense too. A judge will be able to keep things in perspective.

Can we think of a situation these days where it might be useful to refrain from using all social media? It's hard to predict the unpredictable. Can we think of all the unimaginable situations where it isn't possible to use social media? I doubt it.

As a precaution, I'm inclined to leave it in. This gives the judge the option of not using it if doing so restricts the rights of someone looking for a job, for example.

I had another question, Madam Chair. I gather that, because we're changing lines 22, 23 and 26 of the bill, paragraphs (c) and (d) of amendment G‑6 are concordance changes.

I see that this is the case. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Next, I have Andréanne.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Obviously, distance can be significant. However, I want to come back to the idea of removing proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(f) concerning the use of social media. According to the wording used, particularly in subsection 810.03(7) on page 3, the jurist or judge could still decide to impose this condition if it's considered desirable. That's my understanding.

As a result, if paragraph 810.03(7)(f) is removed, judges can still impose this condition if it's considered desirable or if the case truly requires it. Is that right? Since I just heard otherwise, I don't know anymore.

[Chelsea Moore]

Exactly. The wording enables judges to impose any condition considered desirable to ensure the good conduct of the defendant or to secure the safety and security of the informant.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The amendment doesn't eliminate this possibility.

[Chelsea Moore]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Thank you.

Dominique.