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.

peace bondsocial media12 monthsgo aheadjustice system

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chelsea Moore  Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Stephanie Bond
Julia Nicol  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Dancella Boyi  Legislative Clerk

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Okay. This is the one with “refrain from going to any specified place”.

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

Are there any more questions?

Go ahead, Anna.

As spoken

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”?

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

Officials, do you want to answer that?

As spoken

12:45 p.m.

Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Chelsea Moore

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?

As spoken

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Not really, but....

As spoken

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?

As spoken

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.

As spoken

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.

As spoken

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)

As spoken

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.

As spoken

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.

As spoken

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?

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

Yes. We'll suspend.

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

We will resume the meeting.

Michelle.

As spoken

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?

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

Officials, can you answer Michelle's question?

As spoken

12:50 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Julia Nicol

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?

As spoken

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?

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

Officials, you can answer.

As spoken

12:55 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Julia Nicol

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).

As spoken

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?

As spoken

The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu

Officials, do you want to chime in on that and answer?

As spoken

12:55 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Julia Nicol

It provides consistency across the Criminal Code.

As spoken

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Thank you. It's just for the record.

As spoken