44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023
- 04:09:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, Madam Chair. It's that Bill S-205, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 17 on page 1 with the following:
1(1) Paragraph 515(6)(b.1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by
and by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:
(2) The Act is amended by adding the following
If you want me to give the explanation, it's to remove measures that would require the court to ask whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making an order for bail. That's why we are moving that.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:10:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
In bringing it to the committee, what you're looking at is under the Criminal Code, paragraph (b.1) of subsection 515(6). You're taking out that entire part of the bill from clause 1, all the way down to where subclause 1(3) begins.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:10:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:10:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You're taking out proposed subsection 515(3.1), “Consulting intimate partner”, and proposed paragraph 515(4)(e.1).
Is there any discussion on that? It looks at removing the first two proposed subsections.
Go ahead, Andréanne.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:10:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, I want to make sure that I understand one of the amendments. I'd like you to repeat the proposed changes.
What is the reason for removing the reference to “justice” in point (2), I believe?
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm going to make a quick note.
We're looking at the part right here. There may have been an interpretation issue there, because I think the word I heard wasn't here specifically in the bill.
What we're looking at is this clause here. It would be under “Criminal Code”. They are the subclauses that take you straight from “Criminal Code” down to the beginning of subclause 1(3).
Sonia, I'll pass the floor over to you for discussion as to Andréanne's question.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:11:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, can she explain...?
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:11:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
She was just wondering why you want that part removed.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:11:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I talked about that. Those measures would add electronic monitoring to the list of bail condition options for all crimes. Some courts might interpret this as shifting the onus onto prosecutors. This could cause major delays to bail, including when prosecutors cannot contact victims, thus threatening public safety. Victim services is [Inaudible—Editor] to take safety into consideration, and must already take safety considerations of victims into account in bail decisions.
This will also disproportionately impact indigenous, Black and racialized people.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:12:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm just going to let you know, because I did ask for this to be brought up.... Thank you very much. I'll just let you know that if G-1 is adopted, it means that NDP-1 cannot be moved, due to the line conflict.
I always like to bring this up to everybody, to inform you of some of the conflicts. If G-1 is moved and adopted, then NDP-1 cannot be moved, because there's a line conflict.
This is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.
Right now, as I said, we are looking at G-1 only. We're not going to be talking about NDP-1, but I just want you to have in mind that if G-1 is voted upon and adopted, NDP-1 cannot be looked at.
I do have a question for you, Sonia. It would be taking the person who is the victim, not having to ask their.... Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong. By moving this, it's not getting the consultation with the victim, or are you saying the victim is being consulted already? Can you share?
236 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:14:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Victims are already consulted. Why I am saying that is that it impacts more disproportionately Black and racialized people.
The other point, Madam Chair, is that Bill C-233 considers intimate partner violence as a crime for which electronic monitoring should be especially considered, if we consider it for all crimes.
Judges do not get the nudge to treat IPV with extreme care. That was the other point I wanted to add.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:14:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I have Anna followed by Andréanne.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:14:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm a little confused. If I read this correctly, it's going to read “the Criminal Code is replaced by”. Is that what we're changing? Are we taking out, “Act is amended by adding the following”?
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:15:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We're taking out all of this part right here. That entire section is removed.
That “Consulting intimate partner” part is the key part that would be removed in the clause she's referring to.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:15:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
It's all the way down to 1(3).
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:15:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's correct.
Do you have another comment before I move on?
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:15:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:15:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We have Andréanne followed by Anita, followed by Leslyn, followed by Marc.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:15:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, you said that if we adopt amendment G‑1, we can't vote on amendment NDP‑1.
Personally, I would prioritize amendment G‑1 over amendment NDP‑1.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:16:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thanks very much.
It's a little different from a study with the recommendation, but I really do appreciate that insight.
Are there any further comments?
I'm looking at Anita, Leslyn and Marc.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
