SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Committee

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023
Context: Committee Evidence - FEWO-89 (FEWO) - Dec/4/23
Ms. Sonia Sidhu
  • 04:39:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I think that's better.
5 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:39:03 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Okay. Let's start by looking at (a), which is replacing lines 9 through 12 on page 2. It's 810.03(1). Leslyn, you have your hand up.
29 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Leslyn Lewis
  • 04:39:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes. Firstly, this amendment changes the entire meaning of the bill, because it's now focused on any person, rather than on the intimate partner. The original clause reads, “A person who fears”. In law, fear is a subjective test based upon a person's feelings. Applying it to “any person” objectifies it. It changes the entire meaning. You cannot say, “any person” and still be specific to that intimate partner. We are actually nullifying this entire clause by doing that. Furthermore, go down to where it speaks about “will cause personal injury to the intimate partner”. It changes “their intimate partner” to “the intimate partner”. It could be the intimate partner of any individual. This bill is dealing with specific people facing violence. By doing this, you're completely watering down the intent of protecting women who are in situations of violence.
155 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:40:50 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Are there any more comments? Go ahead, Sonia.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Sonia Sidhu
  • 04:40:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I can see Dr. Lewis's point, but this would allow a peace officer, family friend or loved one who reasonably believes the accused will commit an offence that will cause injury to either the victim or their children, to apply for the IPV-specific peace bond on behalf of the victim. We know victims of IPV often don't report the abuse for many reasons, including fear of their abuser. This removes some elements of the proposed peace bond, such as those relating to timelines. It allows submissions from the informant regarding conditions to be imposed on the defendant, in order to bring the procedure in line with other peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code.
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:41:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Before I bring it back over to Leslyn, I'm going to give the floor to Chelsea and Julia for comment.
21 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Julia Nicol (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)
  • 04:41:55 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you. With this amendment, the intimate partner would still be able to come before the court and seek the peace bond. What it would do, though, is that it would allow others, as was said previously, to do so as well, in situations...for example, where the intimate partner may be too scared to come forward. It's very common to do it through the police and so forth. This would also align with the wording in other peace bonds, so it would not limit what an intimate partner could do themselves. It would give a bit more flexibility, potentially, but I understand the balance you will have to make in terms of how, if you want that specific language, that would limit what is possible under this provision.
130 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:42:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
You're explaining that right now, the way it's written in the original text allows only the victim to make this request, and that this amendment, then, would allow anyone to make this request. Is that what you're saying?
41 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Chelsea Moore
  • 04:43:09 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'm just going to add something. Peace bonds can go two ways. A victim could bring the peace bond herself. That means she could actually fill out the form, the information, and bring it to court and bear that burden. Otherwise, the victim can go to the police and say, “This is what's happening. Can you help me with laying an information to get a peace bond going?” As the language is currently drafted, it would be only the victim who would be able to bring the peace bond. She would be the only one who would be able to lay the information. The current peace bond provisions in the code foresee that typically it's a police officer that lays the information. The changes to the terminology would allow more flexibility, like my colleague just said, to allow a police officer to bring the information.
150 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:43:59 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
We'll go over to Leslyn.
6 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Leslyn Lewis
  • 04:44:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you for that clarification, but the problem that I have is one of statutory construction. If you have this clause constructed for a person who fears, the reason you're using a less permissive test of fear, which is subjective and does not have an actus reus or a mens rea component in it.... It is basically based on that subjective fear, because you're dealing with the victim. Here, you have taken that very permissive language and then you have applied it to anybody—anybody who has a fear—and usually when you're speaking about people who are not direct victims of something, you don't have such permissive language. You would usually say anybody “with reasonable and probable grounds”, because there's a test that would be applied. That's my only concern there. It's that we are taking it completely outside of this very specific context—
157 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:45:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'm sorry for interrupting all of you beautiful people. The bells are ringing. Could I get everybody to indicate that we can continue for at least the next 15 minutes, and then we'll reassess? We'll continue for 15 minutes, reassess and go from there. Go ahead.
49 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Leslyn Lewis
  • 04:45:16 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
As I was saying, when we have such a specific piece of legislation that's going to be dealing with protecting primarily women, we have more permissive language, but then, when we're applying it, we also have to look at that application in the broader context of the public. “Any person who fears” is not something that I can.... There's a void for vagueness in this language when you have it just apply to the general public. It should.... Do you know what? I'm going to propose a subamendment to this, then.
97 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:45:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Okay. Please go for it. I just want to double-check on subamendments. What we'll do is we'll have you move your subamendment, so that we can get in writing. Then we will suspend so it can be distributed, okay? You have the floor. Go ahead.
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Leslyn Lewis
  • 04:46:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
It reads: Any person who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to the intimate partner or a child of the other person, or to a child of the other person's intimate partner, may lay an information.
49 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:46:53 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Can you say it one more time, please?
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Leslyn Lewis
  • 04:46:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
It reads: Any person who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to the intimate partner or a child of the other person, or to a child of the other person's intimate partner, may lay an information.
49 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Leah Gazan
  • 04:47:29 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I have a question, Chair.
5 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 04:47:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Wait one moment. I'll be right with you, Leah. I'm going to have the clerk repeat it, and then we'll go.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Dancella Boyi (Legislative Clerk)
  • 04:47:44 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just to ensure that we have this correct. We're looking at amendment G-3, “(a) replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following”, and it's that first portion, where we have 810.03(1). Dr. Lewis's amendment is “810.03(1) Any person who believes”—instead of “fears”—“on reasonable and probable grounds”, and then it proceeds as provided. Was there another...?
84 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border