44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023
- 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
- 04:16:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thanks, Madam Chair.
To answer Anna's question, we're removing that proposed subsection because right now the courts do have to take into consideration safety, and it's really victim services that does the communicating. This would make it the prosecutor who would have to communicate with the victim. In that case, if they can't reach the victim, it could lead to very long delays, so it's a major change, and that's why we're putting forward this amendment.
Thank you.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:16:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:16:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
In removing that proposed subsection, you would essentially be removing the entire context of the bill, which focuses specifically on ensuring the safety of intimate partners and preventing further recidivism, acts of violence and criminal acts. If you remove that consultation part, it makes the bill generic, and it takes it out of context.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:17:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We have Marc and then Michelle.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:17:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I want to follow up on this.
Right now the proposed subsection takes it away from the prosecutor and puts it back on victim services, so that will be in place.
I'm also in favour of G-1 versus NDP-1. The reason, as Sonia mentioned, is that it's important to put it onto victim services versus the prosecutor, and a blanket impact on indigenous, Black and racialized people would happen if we didn't take this out.
I'm in favour of G-1 versus the NDP one, and it doesn't take away from the spirit of the bill.
Thanks.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:18:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:18:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Just to clarify, if I understand this correctly, we're saying we want to remove this. The whole foundation of this bill is that victims feel included and know what's going on. I think that was the whole purpose, from the testimony that we heard that there is no control. There is no feeling of knowing where their attacker is. This way, in that very vulnerable time following a bail hearing, which we know statistically is the most dangerous time for victims of domestic violence, the victim is given the choice to know where their attacker is. They get to be consulted, and they feel like they're part of the process.
In bringing this forward right now, what I see happening in the public safety committee with the Paul Bernardo transfer and having the family and friends of victim Kristen French, like Laura, who testified, the biggest piece is that they were not consulted or included. It is retraumatizing to wake up in the morning and have this news smeared in your paper or in your local media. Without victim consultation and without the victim having their rights, I'm not sure what the intention is of removing that.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:19:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We'll have Leah and then go back to Leslyn.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
