44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023
- 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
- 04:19:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My understanding of that in the criminal justice process is that victims can do one of three things. They can choose not to participate; they can send in a statement, or they can testify in person.
Right now, the way it's set up, victims have a lot of choice. Some people don't want to testify, and some people don't want to see their abuser for whatever reason. This limits, in the way it's worded, the power of victims to assert themselves in the way in which they choose. That's the way I understand the Liberal amendment.
I want to be clear that I do support the Liberal amendment over my amendment. I'm happy to not debate my amendment, because I do think that the intent was good—
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:20:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We can't. Let's not talk about debating yours.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:20:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I know we can't do that yet.
I know the intention was good, but I think it actually does the opposite of its intent by amending it.
Thank you.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I see Leslyn and then Michelle.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:21:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If you look at proposed subsection 515(3.1), what it does is facilitate an interaction between the prosecutor and the justice, who will make a recognizance determination, so more information is actually helpful for the process. That's how you have an equitable outcome.
I don't see any racial disparities here whatsoever. In fact, I see that this clause would allow the prosecutor to communicate with victim services, and the victim could choose to provide that information or not. It ensures that the victim's situation is taken into account when bail terms are set by the judge.
I think it's very informative and useful for the judge to have that information in their deliberation process. This also ensures that the conditions of recognizance are commensurate with the gravity of the offence, because without this information, the judge would basically just be exercising their discretion and granting bail terms based on what they see fit, not taking into account the protection of the victim, which is the gravamen of this bill.
Therefore, taking it out would actually be doing a disservice to women and to victims, because the judge would not be able to contemplate what their position is and what their safety needs are. It clearly says that the judge “must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted”.
This is a duty to consult, and it is a very important duty. If we understand the legal interpretation of this clause, the duty to consult women who are victims of intimate partner violence is essential, and to remove this is basically to negate the bill.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:23:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:23:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm not quite as eloquent and as legal-savvy as my colleague Ms. Lewis. She definitely knows the legal terminology significantly better than I do.
To Ms. Gazan's point, this isn't about seeing the attacker. It's about being consulted. That is the key in this messaging here. I am certain, after spending as much time as I have in FEWO, that there is nobody on this committee who doesn't understand that value. The justice “must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.” This is not putting them in front of their attacker. This is not asking them to do any of that.
I'm actually stunned right now that you guys want to remove this. This is the whole point of the bill. It's about consulting the victim. It's about putting the victim first. It has nothing to do with putting them in place with the attacker. I just wanted to clarify that.
To Ms. Gazan's point, I understand what you're saying, wholeheartedly. You don't want to retraumatize.... They don't want to see that attacker or be put in the same room. They don't want to do that. That is not what this is saying. It is ensuring that the victim is consulted about their safety and security needs.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:24:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:24:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I find it quite disturbing that one would invoke racial connotations to say that this will somehow bias people based on race when a woman who has been abused is consulted about her safety. Oftentimes, men are making determinations about how this woman will be kept safe. That they should not have any information about that woman and about what she feels she needs to be safe in this context....
To remove this is a violation of every woman who has been a victim of intimate violence, and to not recognize the importance of a judge having an opinion of what that woman feels she needs to be safe is to rob that woman of her agency.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Are there any other questions or comments?
Go ahead, Anna.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:25:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm listening to Leslyn. Are we not the status of women committee, and are we not here to protect women? How many times have we heard from witnesses that their accuser was let out of jail, and by the time they were informed it was too late and they were revictimized?
I'm sorry, but I guess that's what I'm confused about.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
