44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023
- 04:26:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Just taking out my membership, honestly, I know I'm just one of the votes, but at the end of the day I think this is about what we studied. We heard a lot about consultation, a lot about speaking to victims so the victims' voices were heard, and whether or not, during the criminal trial process, during all of these things leading up to that, people have been consulted. Consulting this intimate partner is the key detail to this. Consultation is the piece.
I'll be quiet for a minute.
Are there any other speakers?
Go ahead, Sonia.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:27:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, I think we already dealt with this in Bill C-233. I already spoke on that. That is, I think, on the first part.
We talked about the bail hearing, which elevated intimate partner violence as a crime for which electronic monitoring should be specially considered. We did this with Bill C-233.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:27:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I just want to take a moment to throw the ball down to Chelsea and Julia.
I just want to ensure...because this obviously is one of the big pieces, if it is already existing in our Criminal Code. If not, what happens if there is a duplication, because something is already occurring here in this bill if it's a duplicate?
If I could pass that on to Julia and Chelsea and get some answers, that would be great.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:28:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Just to clarify, the motion G-1 would actually remove two proposals from this bill. I believe that might be a source of some of the confusion.
The first proposal that would be removed is the proposal to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been consulted, and the second proposal that would be removed is the proposal regarding electronic monitoring. They both fall under the first clause. The one motion deals with both proposals at the same time.
On electronic monitoring, as the committee is certainly aware, there was a specific condition added to the Criminal Code that, at bail, judges must consider imposing a condition of electronic monitoring in cases of intimate partner violence and other cases—other serious charges. That did receive royal assent in former Bill C-233. That's with respect to the second proposal.
The first proposal, with respect to the obligation to ask the prosecutor if they've consulted the victim about their safety and security, is not currently in the Criminal Code; however, there are a few related provisions, which have a similar intent to this proposal and would be added by Bill C-48, which was adopted by both Houses last week.
Hopefully that clarifies a little. I think there's been some discussion about both proposals, maybe mixing the discussion together, so I just wanted to clarify that there are two different ones.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:29:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's why we need you here, Chelsea.
I'll take it back to Leslyn, followed by Andréanne.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:29:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:29:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:29:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Moore, I gather from your comments that it would be appropriate to keep the part that says the justice must consult the prosecutor.
Is that right?
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
It really depends on what factors you'll consider when applying this provision. I can provide other factors to consider, if you want.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:30:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:30:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'll switch to English, if that's okay.
The effect of the first proposal, which would remove the consultation piece, is that it would require the bail court to ask the prosecutor if the victims had been consulted about their safety needs. In practice, this could translate into a conversation between the prosecutor and the bail justice in the courtroom about the victims' safety concerns. Some victims might welcome having their safety concerns discussed in this way, but others might feel uncomfortable with these kinds of conversations being discussed in an open court and in the accused's presence.
The current practice of bail hearings is to hear the allegations before the court and look at the past violent behaviour of the accused to determine whether bail would be appropriate based on a number of considerations, including public safety and the safety of the victim. The Crown does make submissions on the conditions to be imposed, and it's quite standard to seek out conditions to keep the accused away from the victim, such as no contact and not going to a specific place or area. Currently, there is no discussion at the bail hearing about the broader security needs of the victim. That tends to take place with victim services personnel, who sort of screen what government services they need to contact in order to establish the safety of the victim. The specific security needs of the victim are not currently discussed in open court.
247 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:32:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I have a quick question for you. Would there be an option for her to do it privately? I hear you talking about those conditions and security in court. Would there be an opportunity for somebody to do that outside of court in an informal conversation, so it's not in the public realm but somewhere where the victim would feel safe?
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:32:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Victims don't typically appear at a bail hearing, so they wouldn't necessarily be present. It is possible, but it's uncommon, because a bail hearing takes place within 24 hours. It's sort of a cooling-off period to separate the two parties, so the victims don't usually show up.
If the Crown feels that there's a sensitive or delicate issue with respect to a victim's discussing their security needs in court, the Crown can always ask to go into chambers with the lawyer for the accused and the judge to speak about it privately. That is an option, but it wouldn't necessarily be an option for a self-represented accused.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That really does help give us more insight, so thank you very much for that.
Are there any further questions or comments?
Is there anyone online?
Seeing none, shall G-1 carry?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:33:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Can we have a recorded vote?
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:33:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, of course.
We'll have a recorded vote on G-1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
The Chair: That is carried, so NDP-1 is out.
Next, we have G-2.
It doesn't matter if he's not the mover, does it? He can still talk about it.
We'll give the floor to Mr. Serré.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:35:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Amendment G‑2 is fairly straightforward.
It is that Bill S‑205, in clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 23 on page 1 with the following:
tenaire intime, s'il a été auparavant condamné
It simply involves changing the words “déclaré coupable” to “condamné”. The amendment is purely practical.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:36:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Okay. It's a better way of saying that.
I'm looking at our French speakers in the room. Andréanne has her head going. Arielle has not said anything.
Emmanuella, do I see some nodding? You're good with that.
It looks like everyone is okay with the French version.
Shall G-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 2)
The Chair: Would anyone like to present amendment G-3?
Go ahead, Sonia.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, Madam Chair.
It is that Bill S-205, in clause 2, be amended by (a) replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:
810.03(1) Any person who fears on reasonable 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
(b) replacing lines 32 to 34 on page 2 with:
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defen-
(c) replacing line 1 on page 3 with:
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable
(d) replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with:
or to secure the safety and security of the intimate partner or a child of the defendant, or a child of the defendant's intimate partner, including condi-
(e) replacing line 20 on page 3 with—
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If you like, we don't have to read it all into the record.
Ms. Sonia Sidhu: Yes.
The Chair: What we could do is.... I'm looking at what we have here. We have a lot of bits that we might want to take one chunk at a time.
We could start off with (a), then go through (b), then go through (c), if that's okay with you.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
