Status of Women Committee on Feb. 1st, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-205 , an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act.

At the meeting of December 4, the committee adopted the following: clause 1 as amended by amendments G-1 and G-2; clause 4; clause 5; clause 9; and clause 10. At the meeting of December 11, the committee adopted amendments G-3 and G-4 pertaining to clause 2. At the meeting of January 30, the committee adopted clause 2 as amended by G-5, NDP-2, G-6 and G-7; clause 3 as amended by G-8; clause 6 as amended by G-9, G-10 and G-11; and clause 7 as amended by G-12.

(On clause 8)

Today we are resuming debate on amendment G-13, which pertains to clause 8. G-13 was moved by Lisa on January 30.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I just want to jump in on this to remind committee members about G-13. It's really just another amendment to make the legislation coherent with things we've already agreed upon in relation to G-3.

I don't know if the officials have anything further to add, but that's what that's about.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

If there are no speakers on the list....

Go ahead, Karen.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Just making it very simple, I believe that we did look at G-13 and discussed some of the changes. I believe at this time that we recognize that it is just in co-operation with the rest of the bill. It looks good to us.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Is everyone clear?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

On new clause 10.1 and amendment G-14, we are resuming debate.

Go ahead, Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I am happy to move this amendment. This is an amendment to coordinate with Bill C-21, which is also in the process of being passed through Parliament. This is a technical coordinating amendment to ensure that this bill will align with other bills in Parliament that we're studying.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Michelle, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Just for the record, obviously we've been pretty candid about where we sit with Bill C-21 in terms of it going towards law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. I think we just want that on the record.

I also want to say to my colleagues that there was an abrupt move to adjourn the last meeting. The reason is that it's really important that I hear from the senator when we're dealing with this and hear that he is okay with this. This is his bill, so it's to make sure that I am listening and that I have all of the right information.

It's not a partisan hack or something like that. I just want it on the record that Senator Boisvenu put this bill forward with so much heart, and he is retiring. His daughter was murdered, as we said into the record many times. I'll talk with my colleague from the NDP about this. We know that we want to get this to the House and we want to get it there correctly, but I just want to say for the record that this was the issue. It is just trying to coordinate, and that's why we had to suspend. It was to make sure that he is okay with this. That's really what we're here to do—to be his vessel to make sure that his daughter's honour is in the right tack.

I just want that on the record.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Shall G-14 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 11)

Shall clause 11 carry?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

No.

Chair, we are opposed to clause 11, because it would repeal changes that we saw in Bill C-233, which this committee studied. That was Keira's law. It would mean that the coordinating amendments to the clause would not apply. That is why we would vote down this clause.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Okay.

Go ahead, Michelle.

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

I'm curious about the analysts' opinions on this as well, and on how it would impact Bill C-233.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

We'll have the analysts, please.

[Julia Nicol, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

Originally, as was explained by the member, that's what would happen. However, you'll remember that subclause 1(2) of Bill S-205, regarding electronic monitoring, has been removed. Bill S-205 no longer deals with electronic monitoring in the bail context. It's still in the peace bond. At this point it's not necessary because we're not addressing the same things anymore.

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

To follow up on that, this was one of the real issues of contention for us as Conservatives. We wanted that electronic bracelet. We wouldn't be supporting this. We can do a recorded division.

I think the real issue for us sitting here is that the period of bail is often, statistically, when we know the victim is most vulnerable. That's why we didn't support the removal of that measure. We obviously lost the vote, but we would want that in. I wanted that on the record as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Officials, do you want to answer that?

[Julia Nicol]

It may be helpful to know that it is in there in the context of domestic violence due to the approach taken in Bill C-233. That one explicitly requires consideration of the use of electronic monitoring as a bail condition for a certain narrow set of offences. That would include situations of intimate partner violence. It may provide you with some comfort that it is in there in relation to Bill C-233.

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

This is where I miss my colleague, Ms. Lewis, who is a lawyer and so savvy in these things.

Through you, Chair, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that because it's covered in Bill C-233, you don't need it in Bill C-205.

[Julia Nicol]

Yes. Bill C-233 maintains.... It can be used even if it's not explicitly in a peace bond. There is a broader option for this to be used in any context. That's in the peace bond context.

In the bond context, Bill C-233 speaks explicitly in terms of violence against a person, whether used, threatened or attempted, including against the accused’s intimate partner. Therefore, that aspect that you were concerned about is covered by that bill, which is already—

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

I guess my question is this: Why wouldn't we want it in Bill C-205, if it's already there?

[Julia Nicol]

Why would we?

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

Why wouldn't we?

[Julia Nicol]

That decision was already made with subclause 1(2)—

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

That's exactly my point. That's what I'm saying, unless I'm getting confused, which is possible. I'm saying if it's already under one area, and it's in Bill C-233.... We lost the vote in subclause 1(2), but it's already there in Bill C-233, so what would be the benefit of removing it? I guess that's what I'm saying.

[Chelsea Moore, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can speak to the effect of the G-1 motion that was voted on previously, if that's helpful to the committee.

The effect of the G-1 motion was that electronic monitoring would not be explicitly listed as a bail condition that a court could impose for all offences. That's what Bill S-205 had proposed—that electronic monitoring be added so that it could be imposed for all offences. Currently the conditions listed in subsection 515(4) of the Criminal Code are standard conditions that are routinely imposed and more broadly applicable to the different types of charges that come before the court.

For example, it says to report to a police officer, “remain within a [certain] territorial jurisdiction”, not to contact the victim or go to a certain area of the city. These are standard conditions that are routinely imposed, and that's why they fall under the standard bail conditions list.

Any condition that is added to the standard list does have the potential to become more routinely imposed, simply because it's easy to check off once it's on the list. While in many cases it could be considered a necessary condition, it could also be routinely imposed, even though it might not be reasonable or necessary. However, as mentioned previously, even if it's removed from that list—and it's not included in this bill—it would still be allowed to be imposed where appropriate, because a judge has this residual power to impose any condition that's reasonable or necessary. However, judges would be required to “consider” electronic monitoring as a result of the changes made in Bill C-233 in cases of domestic violence.