THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 30, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Mobina Jaffer, senator from British Columbia, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting. Senators, as this is a public meeting, I will ask you to introduce yourselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Senator Brent Cotter, Saskatchewan.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, from the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Klyne: Hello. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis from the senatorial division of The Laurentides, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, as you are aware, today we conclude our study on Bill S-205, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).
The committee has held five meetings on the topic, with 22 witnesses providing testimony and numerous others providing briefs. We would like to thank all witnesses for appearing and helping us through our deliberations.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that, at all times, we have the same understanding of where we are in the process. There may be one or two amendments on each clause, so if you need clarification, please ask.
As chair, I will do my utmost, with the help of the clerk, to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation and I ask you all to consider other senators and to keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of voice votes or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Any questions, senators? Seeing none, we will proceed.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry? On debate.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I will be speaking to a number of clauses, and I did let Senator Boisvenu know ahead of time what my thoughts were.
Basically, what clause 1 does is give police the power to order an offender to wear an electronic monitoring device, under section 501.
[English]
My recollection is that the witnesses, including the police officers, were not very warm to that proposal. There were many reasons raised. One was that we need standards and the same applications of that power. One of the witnesses — I think it was the representative from RS, Recovery Science Corporation from Ontario — said they would prefer the judge to decide if there is a case after proper evaluation of the risks, dangers and availability of the material and its proper functioning, et cetera.
Based on that, I propose to remove section 1 in order to keep only the power being given to judges to order the wearing of an electronic monitoring device but not to the police.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, senator, for letting me know ahead of time. I completely understand your position, and I’m trying to find some middle ground.
Victims and shelters have told us that, if they are released, abusers pose the greatest threat in the first few hours after the victim has reported the abuse or filed a complaint against their abuser. It’s usually the period of time between when police become involved and when the abuser appears before a judge. That can be a week, and, for a variety of reasons, it’s a crucial time for victims, in terms of being threatened or harassed.
Senator Dalphond, you know more about the law than I do. Here’s what I’m proposing, so you tell me what you think.
When a police officer appears before the justice of the peace with reasonable grounds, they can obtain a search warrant. Can the same thing be done in this case?
Take a police officer who’s sure that the victim’s life or safety is at risk and knows that there will be a wait between when the complaint is filed and when the judge determines whether to place the person in custody or not. If the police officer were to provide a justice of the peace with reasonable grounds to require the offender to wear an electronic monitoring device, would it be possible to establish limits around the requirement to wear the device, instead of leaving it solely to the police officer’s discretion?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dalphond, if you let me, Senator Cotter also had his hand up. I’ll have him speak. Is it okay if I then come back to you? Thank you, senator.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t mean to interrupt the rich dialogue that was building between Senator Boisvenu and Senator Dalphond.
I wanted to offer my thoughts on this same point. Based on the evidence the witnesses provided, I had similar reservations to the ones articulated by Senator Dalphond. One part of that was the degree to which police officers might be inclined to order electronic monitoring when the system wasn’t really there to receive it. We would be in a mess then. It would be impractical to implement.
It’s also nice to have what I would call more judicial authorization. The result is that I am sympathetic to the suggestion or moderation of this that Senator Boisvenu has just suggested.
In Saskatchewan, for example — perhaps Senator Batters would be familiar with this as well — mechanisms have been put in place to be able to get justice of the peace authorizations for terms of appearances by telephone, telephone hearings, kind of on the spot, to help address the real vulnerability that Senator Boisvenu has identified. I don’t know whether the phrase “judicial authorization” is correct, but the answer is, I think, if justices of the peace can do it instead of police officers, I think we could achieve the same result, and I would be more comfortable with the process.
Justices of the peace in the jurisdiction and range of the jurisdiction would be trained to know if it could actually be done, whether it is technically feasible in Moosonee, Ontario, or downtown Saskatoon, and say, “I understand that’s a good idea, but we can’t do it. It doesn’t work there, so we’ll have to do something else.”
I would be much more comfortable with an approach like that. It would have a degree of judicial authorization so that it could also be a little more impartial and still more or less immediate or reasonably quick. I would also be confident that it would be practical. I am supportive of the halfway house, however the language might be crafted.
The Chair: Senator Dalphond, do you want to speak to Senator Cotter’s point or to Senator Boisvenu’s?
Senator Dalphond: I want to make an intervention in connection with both comments.
You have to understand here we are dealing with an appearance further to a charge. So the person is arrested and brought to the police station, and then the police officer can release them with certain conditions. This is the first step, and this is the step which is favoured. But the person could also be held in custody, and then the person has to appear before a judge within the next 24 hours. This is the constitutional right to appear before a judge as soon as possible. Sometimes it is a bit more than 24 hours because it is the weekend.
If the police feels the person is very dangerous and it is the type of person that you need to control, maybe the solution is that the police keep the person in jail and bring it before a judge within the next 24 or 48 hours, and that judge could then order to have a bracelet worn. We are at the very early in the stage of the process. The person was charged and arrested, and now we are discussing release with conditions. It would be better if the person could come before the court with a lawyer and be able to expose — will they have to wear a bracelet? Why or why not? And the assessment of the security risk would be done.
Senator Batters: Are you making an amendment about this? Are you seeking to remove a section? What are you trying to do on this particular —
Senator Dalphond: Remove it.
Senator Batters: Remove what?
Senator Dalphond: I didn’t move an amendment. I said, no, I was not in support of adopting clause 1. I would be voting no to clause 1.
Senator Batters: I see. Okay. All right.
To Senator Cotter’s point earlier, yes, that is called a telewarrant — where they do those types of things by phone in Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Earlier I thought I heard Senator Dalphond say to strike clause 1.
The Chair: That’s right.
Senator Klyne: But you’re just not going to vote for it.
The Chair: That is what he said.
Senator Klyne: Yes. Okay.
The Chair: Strike it.
Mark Palmer, Clerk of the Committee: Just a reminder that to delete a clause, the proper procedure is just to vote against it when the clause — we ask — see how clause 1 could carry.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I am also opposed to clause 1, because as I see it, putting that responsibility in the police’s hands is problematic without some mechanism in between. That’s based on what we heard not just from police, but also from others. On top of that, the challenges related to training have been established and are known. I raised that with a number of witnesses. We don’t know whether police unions are going to ask for that training or whether the authorities in charge of implementing these types of additions to the Criminal Code will be responsible.
For that reason, I do not support clause 1 of Bill S-205.
[English]
Senator Batters: On the point that Senator Dupuis just brought up, we had the head of the Canadian Police Association indicate he was in favour of this bill. That is the union dealing with police in Canada, and they indicated they were in support of this bill. They did testify here.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have a question for Senator Dupuis, if I may.
Senator, I understand that you are against the clause as it currently stands, but would you be supportive of an amendment that added an intervening layer between the police officer and the justice system? That way, police would at least be subject to a legal framework when imposing the device, as Senator Cotter proposed.
Senator Dupuis: No matter who proposes it, my view is that, if we decide to establish an electronic monitoring system, we have to establish a procedure for that, whether it involves a justice of the peace or a judge, some way to assess whether it’s actually feasible. We know that it’s not feasible in a number of places. Even witnesses who had led electronic monitoring pilots acknowledged that real-life implementation posed all kinds of challenges. Keep in mind the challenges police responding in remote regions face, even when individuals are wearing the devices.
The police we heard from didn’t say that they were opposed to training. Presumably, few people would be opposed to training.
What worries me more is what we heard from the witnesses. It was quite clear they had no awareness whatsoever that the problem wasn’t all about funding. It also has to do with police training.
[English]
The Chair: Any other interventions, senators? No?
Senators, I am going to put this again to you: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Okay. So then we put it to a vote.
Mr. Palmer: So the question on the vote is shall clause 1 carry.
The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Abstain.
Mr. Palmer: Yes — 2. No — 7. Abstentions — 1.
The Chair: Senators, clause 1 is defeated.
Senators, shall clause 2 carry?
There is an amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I think everyone received a copy of the amendments. The first change to clause 2 is on page 1 of the bill.
I am moving amendment PJD-S205-2-1-8. It reads as follows:
That Bill S-205 be amended in clause 2, on page 1,
(a) by replacing lines 8 to 11 with the following:
“2 (1) Subsection 515(4.2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a.1) and by adding the following after that paragraph:
(a.2) that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request; or
(2) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.3):
(4.4) Before including any condition under subsection (4.2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the”;
(b) by deleting lines 17 to 23.
I will gladly explain it.
Clause 2 deals with two things on page 1. Proposed subsection (3.1) refers to consultation of the intimate partner.
Then, subsection 515(4) is amended by adding the following language:
(e.1) wear an electronic monitoring device;
(e.2) attend, under the supervision of the court, a treatment program . . .such as an addiction treatment program or a domestic violence counselling program.
What my amendment would do is replace those paragraphs. Here’s why.
First, under paragraph (e.2), which is captured in subclause (2), the court may, as one of the conditions of the release order, require that the individual “attend . . .such treatment program . . . such as an addiction treatment program or a domestic violence counselling program.”
I understand the idea behind it, but I’m not really sure about the measure.
The Chair: Sorry, just a minute.
Senator Dalphond: Even I have a hard time keeping this straight. Not having the text makes it difficult.
The Chair: Are you ready? Thank you. My apologies.
Senator Dalphond: I’m on page 1 of the bill. Let’s go from the bottom up.
Subclause (2) is at the bottom. Under paragraph (e.2), the justice could order the individual to attend a treatment program. I understand the idea behind this, and I think it’s important to address the cause of family violence with therapy and treatment.
This applies to an accused who is in custody and will be released. The principle of innocent until proven guilty still applies. Requiring the person to submit to a treatment program is akin to handing down a sentence or form of punishment, when they have not been found guilty yet. The measure implies that, if the person requires treatment, the justice is of the view that the person has committed family violence. It’s almost prejudging the outcome of a process that is just starting.
It’s one thing to impose a treatment program in certain conditions once a person has been found guilty. We heard from witnesses who highlighted the overly punitive aspects of the bill. I agree with them on that.
Paragraph (e.1) sets out the condition that the individual “wear an electronic monitoring device.” I support the measure, but I would put it somewhere else.
Currently, the bill puts it in subsection 515(4), but I propose putting it in subsection 515(4.2) instead, the idea being the same. Why am I proposing moving it to subsection 515(4.2)? Because that’s where the bill that was passed by the House — C-233, I believe, which I am honoured to sponsor — put it. I think we should avoid putting a measure that does the same thing in a different place in the Criminal Code. We don’t want the two bills to say different things if they are enacted. It’s about being consistent.
In addition, I proposed adding “that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device” before the words “if the Attorney General makes the request.” I did that for two reasons. The first has to do with Bill C-233: the accused may be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device, but only if the Attorney General makes the request. This, too, is about ensuring consistency.
The second has to do with something the witnesses made clear — as you recall, we talked a lot about Quebec’s experience. There are a limited number of monitoring devices, so it’s important to make sure that the requirement is imposed in cases where it’s warranted. It shouldn’t be applied broadly. That is why I am proposing adding “if the Attorney General makes the request.”
Lastly, just above that on page 1 is “Consulting intimate partner,” which stays. The difference with the bill that’s being proposed is that, in the bill, it says, “Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused . . . .” I’m proposing changing that language to “Before including any condition” — instead of “making an order” — “under subsection (4.2) in respect of an accused.” The rest is the same. It doesn’t change.
What’s the difference? I know it’s extremely technical, but subsection 515(2) sets out the general conditions that a justice may impose on someone in custody who is being released. It applies to someone accused of committing fraud, robbing a bank, breaking and entering, and so forth.
What Senator Boisvenu’s bill is trying to capture —which he made very clear in his remarks about the bill and which all the witnesses who appeared before the committee told us — is intimate partner violence. I want to make sure that an electronic monitoring bracelet is something a justice imposes in cases where the charges relate to intimate partner violence. It shouldn’t be something a justice imposes on someone who got into a bar fight, for example. This is about anchoring the authority to issue an order to wear an electronic monitoring device. I recognize that this is extremely technical and you have to look at the Criminal Code in order to really follow what I’m saying, but subsection 515(4.2) pertains to offences against the person that involve violence. That’s where this should go.
It’s fine if Senator Boisvenu’s intent was to have the condition of wearing an electronic monitoring device apply to accused in all cases, regardless of the offence with which they are charged. However, that wasn’t my understanding.
Senator Boisvenu: You raised a lot of points in one shot, so we’ll have to unpack it all piece by piece. Otherwise, it will get too confusing.
I’ll start with the requirement to attend a treatment program, and, then, I’ll address the more technical points.
Your amendment relates to sections 810 and 515, two sections in which the accused is released instead of being brought to trial.
Senator Dalphond: I don’t have anything relating to section 810. That’s not where we are. This pertains solely to section 515.
Senator Boisvenu: You’re not making any changes there?
Senator Dalphond: That’s not where the changes are.
Senator Boisvenu: In any case, for the purposes of section 515, the accused is brought before a judge and is awaiting trial. Is that correct?
Senator Dalphond: They are awaiting release.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, precisely.
For drinking and driving, for example, the judge has the option of making a young person go to counselling. Why wouldn’t the same principle apply in the case of domestic violence? The ability to require someone to go to counselling, to get help, already exists elsewhere in the Criminal Code. In this situation, abusers are being compelled to get help, but they would instead be released without going to treatment, which means they would pose a greater risk.
Here’s a troubling statistic. A total of 26 women were murdered in Quebec from 2021 to 2022, and 21 of them were killed before the trial. Twelve of them were killed while the accused was out under section 810 instead of being charged criminally. Those 21 women — out of 26 — were killed before the accused went to trial.
Of course, these are men who need help. We heard the same thing from all of the stakeholders we consulted, most of the provinces, most of the groups representing victims of domestic and family violence, sexual assault centres for women, indigenous people and treatment centres for men. They told us unanimously that, in order to break the cycle of domestic violence, the Criminal Code had to include a treatment-based measure, because these are men who assault women over and over again.
As early on in the legal process as possible, the judge should have the discretion, if they feel it’s warranted, to say to the accused that they are going to go to trial. You know what it’s like, Senator Dalphond; you were a judge. The accused’s trial might not happen until two or three years later. As we all know, the wait times aren’t exactly short. In domestic violence cases, the judge will be able to tell the offender that they have to get help in the meantime in order to break the pattern of violence.
Otherwise, we are putting women’s lives in danger if we don’t require these men to get help. I appreciate that the electronic monitoring device will give women some sense of safety, but it’s an interim solution until the man takes ownership; once the time period under section 810 or section 515 is up, the person will no longer be subject to electronic monitoring but will probably still pose a risk.
I think we need to give judges the ability to make accused get help as early on in the legal process as possible. I’ll leave it there, and we can deal with the other points after, so as not to confuse matters.
I’d like to hear what my fellow senators think about this.
[English]
Senator Batters: I wanted to point out a few of the offences that would no longer be included if this particular amendment of Senator Dalphond were passed. I would say that these offences are very often used in domestic violence cases, and these would encompass section 348 of the Criminal Code, which is “Breaking and entering with intent,” section 349 of the Criminal Code, “Being unlawfully in dwelling-house,” and section 423 (1) of the Criminal Code, which is “Intimidation.” All of those, I would say, are frequently the types of criminal charges that we see in domestic violence cases, and those are just a few examples of it.
I think, perhaps, part of this is that Senator Dalphond is the sponsor of Bill C-233, about which the critic, Senator Manning, who is supportive of the bill, was just giving his speech in the Senate, and we support that bill. It seems, perhaps, this is maybe a bit of an attempt to align this with that bill, but that bill has a narrower scope and it applies to fewer offences.
We can still support — and we continue to support — Bill C-233, but this particular bill, it doesn’t seem like it’s warranted to take those particular serious criminal offences that are often, in the cases of domestic violence, out of this particular scope of this section.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a question for you, Senator Boisvenu.
Senator Boisvenu: I’m listening.
Senator Dupuis: I sense there’s a difference between what you’re proposing in paragraph (e.1), the condition to wear an electronic monitoring device, and paragraph (e.2), the condition to attend a treatment program. I am concerned that this might create false expectations around the ability to keep victims safe. We heard from a number of witnesses who spoke very eloquently about the nightmare they live with, and I understand that completely. In addition, I don’t have any statistics on treatment programs in family violence cases. We may need specific data on the success rate of these programs and on the number of people who complete the programs. That’s what I’m trying to understand.
I follow your logic completely in terms of requiring the offender to wear an electronic monitoring device despite potential problems in implementing the measure. However, I do wonder about the requirement to attend a treatment program. That would be imposed on the accused before their trial was held, even though they are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Attending a treatment program means that they would go somewhere to get help without knowing whether they will have to stick with it until the end.
Why are you connecting the two at this stage in the legal process? I’m not saying that a person who is found guilty shouldn’t have to attend a treatment program to help them become less violent, but I’m trying to better understand what the bill is doing at this stage.
Senator Boisvenu: I’m going to quote a sentence that you often hear from women: “Stop sending men to prison because they come out more dangerous than they were before. Send them to therapy instead.” That’s what they’ve told us.
The vast majority of men sent to prison will spend less than two years there without receiving any services. The average term is approximately six months. That’s not enough time to get into rehabilitation programs. In Quebec, there are no rehabilitation programs for men, except for paedophilia and sexual assault. These men often return to the community, and these are often small communities. Therapy is the way for the community to reintegrate them. That’s also what Indigenous people told us.
It’s true that we have very little data about the rehabilitation of men because we are just barely getting around to saying that we’re going to stop hiding the women and start sending the men into treatment instead. It’s men who cause family abuse, not the women we want to hide.
In Western Canada, Indigenous experience has shown that out of 200 men currently in therapy, 100 were sent there by the court and the other 100 went voluntarily. According to what representatives of the centre told us, the outcomes are approximately the same in both instances. When an abuser sits down with other abusers, voluntarily or otherwise, the dynamics of the situation lead those who are there voluntarily to have approximately the same results as the others. That surprised me. I, like you, believed that they would go there unwilling to listen, spend a month there and then leave. The results clearly show otherwise.
The small communities also told us that they would end up coming back. A legislative obligation is needed. For those required to go into treatment, the judge has to see the outcome before being in a position to determine whether the treatment has yielded the desired results. Having been willing to undergo treatment becomes a mitigating factor once the case gets to the trial stage. This happened in impaired driving cases. For a young man who is undergoes treatment, the judge will notice at trial that he was in treatment while at large and that he had been progressing; in such instances, the sentence will often be reduced, sometimes even to a conditional sentence.
That’s the approach I advocate in instances of spousal violence. Men need to be placed in counselling early. At the same time, the message being sent by the justice system is that there are alternatives to prison, that prison doesn’t yield good results in these cases, and that treatment is the better option. That’s what mainly motivates me and the people we work with.
[English]
Senator Cotter: I didn’t mean to interrupt on this stream of conversation.
The Chair: Is there another stream, then?
Senator Cotter: It’s connected. Let me, at least, make these observations.
On this question, it feels to me implicitly like there’s an assumption of guilt connected to this condition that is less an assumption or implied assumption of guilt.
I’m sympathetic to many of the initiatives that are connected to this bill from Senator Boisvenu, but even in the way in which he talks, he’s really talking about how if the person does well in counselling and the like, the sentence will be less, but built into that very sentence is an assumption of guilt. In some ways I’m troubled by this provision carrying that implicit assumption.
I guess that was my first observation, and in that respect I think I’m sympathetic with the intervention of Senator Dupuis.
I do have a comment and then a question of Senator Dalphond with respect to this amendment, if he would entertain it. The comment is that, as I understand it, it will be the government public prosecutions people who will be carrying these cases, which means, normally, an agent of the Attorney General, a prosecutor, or maybe a police officer in those locations where they are authorized to do this.
Surely, they would have enough of an understanding of the reality of things as to whether to ask for a monitoring device or not. I am worried that the specific language in your amendment of “if the Attorney General makes the request” suggests that we have to go up the chain of command in a department before we can even have the prosecutor make the request.
I would have thought that is almost kind of embedded that the prosecutor will know it is a good idea to ask or a stupid one in the sense that there are no devices available in the area. I would like this to be reasonably streamlined and not complicated, so I have a reservation about that.
My question is really in connection to what Senator Batters asked. I don’t have the numbers on the pages in front of me, so I am a bit confused about the degree to which the amendment circumscribes the kind of circumstances to which Senator Boisvenu’s amendment would apply. Are you able to provide me with a bit of a richer understanding?
Senator Dalphond: Senator Boisvenu is right to say that there are three items here. There is the power of the judge to compel somebody to go to training. There is the power of the judge to order the wearing of a bracelet or monitoring device. And there is the obligation, before the order is made, to make sure that the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs. These are the three ideas.
With respect to the consultation about the security need, I’m not proposing any change. It remains there, except that there is a reference to the sections that is different, but it is the same. The wearing of the electronic monitoring device is the same thing, except it is not put exactly in the same place; it is in a different place. The words added are “if the Attorney General makes the request.”
You raise an interesting question, a good question. Will that make things cumbersome and heavy? I don’t think so, but I must say this is what the House of Commons unanimously adopted. After the consultations and hearings, that’s the amendment they made — that it would be subject to “if the Attorney General makes the request,” which I assume has been the practice. The Attorney General will authorize somebody in the Crown’s office to ask for it, but you will first have to check how many devices are left. Are there 10 left of the 500? Are there 450? In which regions and all of that.
I assume it is something administrative and not to be cumbersome, but it is certainly a good question. We didn’t have that question put to the witnesses. When we have the other bill, maybe that’s something we can explore.
What I tried to avoid here is having two bills saying different things about the same goal. Then you have a problem: Which one will end up in the Criminal Code? One is saying one thing, the other is saying something else and not in the same place, so I said let’s put it in the same place everywhere, and I added these words.
To the last point, where I changed it. Well, 515(2) is “Release order with conditions.” That is the general conditions provision. I propose to make it part of 515(4.2), which is called “Additional conditions.” It is not an order that one will grant easily, the wearing of a monitoring device. It is not meant to be a general condition for all kinds of offences. That’s why I say put it in the section titled “Additional conditions.” The additional conditions in (4.2) apply to — I can read the clause; it’s not very long:
Before making an order under subsection (2), —
— the one we just referred to —
— in the case of an accused who is charged with an offence referred to in subsection (4.3), the justice shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, particularly a victim of or witness to the offence or a justice system participant, to include as a condition of the order . . .
(a.1) that the accused abstain from going to any place or entering any geographic area specified in the order, except in accordance with any specified conditions that the justice considers necessary; or . . .
Then you will have (a.2), which will say:
(a.2) that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request; or
So, the judge can order the person not to enter specific spaces or geographic areas, and then the monitoring comes logically with that, I think.
If we now refer to the type of offences covered in section (4.3):
(4.3) The offences for the purposes of subsection (4.2) are
(a) a terrorism offence;
(b) an offence described in section 264 or 423.1 or subsection 423.2(1);
(c) an offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted . . .
In the House of Commons, through Bill 233, they added “including against the accused’s intimate partner.” They added those words there. The whole structure of (4.2) and (4.3) is including offences against an intimate partner. I thought it would be a better fit than to put it in 515(2), which deals with all kinds of offences for which somebody has been charged.
That doesn’t change the substance of what Senator Boisvenu is doing, not at all, except by adding the Attorney General’s consent. The change that Senator Boisvenu is proposing is the removal of the ability to order training or therapy.
Senator Cotter: Thank you. That’s extremely helpful.
The Chair: Did you have anything else to add?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Dalphond, do you agree with me that opting to include the electronic monitoring device in subsection 515(4) rather than (4.2) allows the judge a lot more latitude? In (4.2), there are offences, and I will name a few of them: intimidation, breaking and entering, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, etc. These offences are not affected by (4.2), whereas in (4), conditions authorized, the judge has a lot more latitude with respect to the range of offences that can be linked to spousal violence.
With 4.2, Some offences related to spousal violence will be missed. That’s what’s worrying me. The judge will have less latitude to require an electronic monitoring device for the offences I listed: 423, intimidation; 348 breaking and entering; 349, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house. What I would like this section to do is leave judges as much attitude as possible rather than placing limits on what they can do.
[English]
Senator Batters: I wanted to address a couple of things that Senator Dupuis said. Perhaps the interpretation that came through for me did not reflect what she meant to say on this. She was talking about a domestic violence treatment program, and it came through as, “What does that do? Do you just go and sit somewhere?” Certainly, I hope that’s not what she said, and I expect that perhaps it wasn’t, but I wanted to put some points on the record about that.
First of all, Saskatchewan actually has domestic violence courts. They deal with these types of charges in a helpful way throughout the process, not simply after a conviction happens. It is precisely the reason that we have these types of courts in Saskatchewan, to perhaps allow for these types of things that are provided in this bill, such as have treatment programs, addictions programs and counselling to help people in these types of terrible situations.
We actually heard compelling testimony from victims about the significant benefits of these types of counselling, treatment and addictions programs for these types of domestic violence charges, including one witness who, despite her devastating experience with domestic violence, has taken it upon herself after experiencing that to work with domestic abusers and go through these court processes and other types of processes to help them with the significant issues they have. Kudos to her. That is an unbelievable testament to her character.
I just wanted to put those points on the record because we’ve had a lot of discussion about domestic violence and what a crucial situation and crisis it is in Canada. Well, let’s do something about it. Let’s use these tools that the courts and police could have to help these women rather than just pass it off to another study or something like that which is not going to actually do anything. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you for those interventions. Thank you again, Senator Boisvenu, for your efforts to address these issues.
I would like to pick up where Senator Batters left off, actually. The challenge is that far too many victims of violence are offered criminal law responses when what they want are responses like safety and ensuring that people will be assisted.
I know we heard some evidence from one of the witnesses about the value of men being in programs — I don’t dispute that — but I think there is very little research to show that mandatory treatment — in fact, most research shows the opposite, that mandatory treatment is not effective. However, when options are provided to individuals, it is more effective.
We also heard from witnesses that we don’t need these kinds of provisions, because they already exist in law, particularly at the pretrial level. I’m not even certain whether we need the amendment — even with the amendment, whether that would improve, and I take Senator Cotter’s point that it could make it much more complicated, and, in fact, we know that would likely result in further delays in the system.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I’ve been relying on the interpreters to translate what I’ve been trying to say here yesterday, the day before yesterday, and today. My question for Senator Boisvenu was about the fact that we had very little data on the outcomes of treatment programs and, in connection with the partial data we have, you Senator Boisvenu, referred to data from experience in the West. We have partial data in Quebec that has been less optimistic, which means there is a problem with data on the effectiveness of these programs. I never said that programs like these should not be given. My question for Senator Boisvenu is the following: at the beginning of the process, when in principle we are happy to have a system in which there is a presumption of innocence, what led her to introduce this factor into her Bill 205?
Senator Boisvenu: The first reason is that none of the witnesses opposed any kind of treatment, at any stage in the court process. Not one. They were unanimous in agreeing that it was better to look to treatment. You’re talking about the effectiveness of treatment, but that’s like the chicken and the egg. Treatment for men is only just starting in Quebec; it’s more developed in Ontario and in the Indigenous communities, because these people return to the community. They have to be reintegrated, and it’s specific in their culture to take charge of abusers.
I raise this aspect because it’s important to develop treatment for men, because there is not enough of it at the moment. If the courts, in their wise decisions, were to require men to go into treatment, expertise would develop. That would lead to more centres receiving men. Quebec has only just begun to invest a few million in developing centres for men, because having abusers just show up every Wednesday evening is not going to solve their problems. We need to begin managing men the way we deal with women. They need to be taken out of the home and placed in the centre for 24 hours a day, and then be monitored for 30 days. It’s the only way to help them. We just need to know where to start.
Are we going to wait five years to look at results, to be able to say that it worked? Is the court system going to ask victims to condemn the abuse against them or ask men to go and get help? I just want to update the court system by requiring men to go into treatment. There ought to be a legal requirement, which would be a somewhat more promising approach.
Senator Dupuis: Do you remember Mr. Scott Newark, who was a witness? He was the crown prosecutor in Alberta for 34 years. He was in favour of your bill. He told us that everything in it was already in the Criminal Code, but not being enforced.
My question for you is the following: According to your (e.2), when judges can order, under the supervision of the court, that someone enter a treatment program, or a counselling program, the judges would say that if it were set out in black and white, they would do it. Nothing is guaranteed, even when it’s in black and white; that’s my concern. I agree with you that you have to start somewhere, but if we have a system that is unfavourable to women, and does not serve them well, then it’s not just because there is more clarity in a range of options for a justice of the peace that we will succeed. I’d like to warn you against the risk of giving false hope. I think you understand very well why I am raising the issue.
Senator Boisvenu: I understand very well, but that’s not what women have told us. The victims told us to ask judges to send their spouses into treatment. That’s what we want to add to the Criminal Code. For me that means an embryonic chapter on spousal violence in the Criminal Code. Rather than have a catch-all for all kinds of things in the Criminal Code, I want to see everything together as part of a whole. That’s because we are now developing special programs for spousal violence and sexual assault. A chapter in the Criminal Code deals with sexual offences, but there is nothing about spousal violence, and it’s a catch-all. I think that the approach to spousal violence is both coercive towards the individual, where he is told that he will be monitored.
According to the data, most murders are committed before the trial is held. The individual needs to be given care in order to rehabilitate. The rate of recidivism in the Quebec justice system is eight times higher than average. It’s not the person who appears once before a judge that costs the justice system a lot of money, but rather when the same person comes back eight times. My view is that treatment is the best preventive approach in the justice system. Justice is not only coercive, but also preventive. That’s why I want to include the therapeutic approach to the justice process in the Criminal Code as quickly as possible.
Senator Dalphond: To say that the source of the problem needs to be addressed and treatment required — imprisonment will not solve the problem. When men get out, they can be even more damaged and violent, which is why treatment is needed. I have no objection for treatment to be agreed to voluntarily under section 810 for a release, or even for the judge to order it under 810.
However, we’re talking about a process in which someone has visibly pleaded not guilty and is asking to be released, and the judge may order him to enter treatment because he is a violent man. I have no problem in assuming that when the verdict is handed down, the judge can either suspend a person’s sentence and require him to enter treatment, with a re-evaluation a few months later for an appropriate sentence. Or again, for a judge to impose a conditional release, to be served in the community, with a number of conditions added, including entering treatment. Failure to comply with the condition would get the person in question back in court again.
I agree with you that this is what we should aim at and use to the greatest extent possible. My problem here is that I have taken in what the witnesses have said. If punitive conditions are applied to someone just beginning the process and that person is presumed innocent, I am nevertheless prepared to acknowledge that it should be possible for judges to order the wearing of a monitoring device — which may be a form of punishment, but I’m ready to accept it because it’s being done not for punishment, but as a preventive measure and for the protection of women. It’s done for the protection of victims. Many witnesses have told us that it would be a rather effective deterrent and that it was a good protective measure. That being the case, I would agree to it as a compromise between the need for protection and the presumption of innocence.
On the other hand, if I were asked to take that even farther, I admit that I would have concerns at that stage. I am altogether in agreement about the previous steps, once the verdict is handed down; with respect to the sentence, all of these things should be possible.
Senator Boisvenu: I agree with you and won’t get into an argument. However, with respect to the application of section 515.4 or 515.4.2, are you in agreement with me that it should rather be in point 4 “conditions authorized” rather than “additional conditions” to ensure that all offences, as I was mentioning earlier, like intimidation, and breaking and entering, which are linked to spousal violence. I think it would be better to keep 515(4) rather than 515(4.2), which would further restrict the number of offences that could be affected by wearing a monitoring device.
Senator Dupuis: So we don’t want to put it in the additional conditions under (4.2)?
Senator Boisvenu: We want to put it instead in section 515 (4), “conditions authorized,” which covers a much broader range. There are many offences in this subsection related to spousal violence, whereas in the other, the related offences are neglected.
Senator Dupuis: We would keep (e. 1).
Senator Boisvenu: The chapter on conditions authorized in the Criminal Code.
Senator Dupuis: We’d keep your (e.1).
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: I agree with Senator Boisvenu: If we put it in (4.2), additional conditions, it’s not as extensive as (4.4); in fact subsection (4) as it stands is called “conditions authorized.” It’s shown to the peace officer, and remains in that officer’s sphere of competence, it advises the peace officer of any changes of address, and the requirement that the accused abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any victim, witness or other person identified in the order, except in accordance with any specified conditions, as well as abstain from going to any place or entering any geographic area specified in the order, to turn in all passports, comply with any other condition specified and comply with any other reasonable condition. That would cover everything more broadly, but there are geographical references in subsection (4) as well. I could live with that, however.
It would create a minor problem, because the House put the provision in (4.2) and not in (4), which would require —
Senator Boisvenu: I have an amendment.
Senator Dalphond: I just wanted to mention that.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Those last observations, I think, underline the challenge of amending the Criminal Code through a process like this.
I feel like I am in a dilemma. I think I would be comfortable leaving that last dialogue where Senator Boisvenu has put it. It seems to me that even in that set of provisions, electronic monitoring is capable of being ordered under (h) any way, “any reasonable conditions.” Maybe it’s not used, because it is not specific enough. That’s the first point.
I’m in support of Senator Dalphond’s suggestion to remove the, let me call it, pre-conviction treatment condition, and despite the fact that somebody else in some other place might have wanted consent of the Attorney General as a requirement for the use of electronic monitoring, I’m not very happy about that.
The dilemma I have is that I want to vote for a portion of this amendment but not the other portions, and I don’t know what to do about that. Senator Dalphond — and it was my fault; we didn’t have a dialogue about this in advance — I like portions of his amendment, but I’m not too keen on other portions.
Senator Busson: Why don’t you put a subamendment?
Senator Batters: The dilemma is solved by voting against the amendment when there is too much in one amendment.
Senator Cotter: May I continue, then?
The problem with that is that this invites me to vote for what I’m concerned about is actually an unconstitutional provision here, which is the one we are talking about removing.
How does one fashion a subamendment to this kind of a setting?
Senator Dalphond: Could I propose something? I won’t have time to draft it. Maybe we could just discuss it —
The Chair: Senators, I have a proposal. We could stand this down for now. Let’s think overnight, have discussions —
Senator Dalphond: Tomorrow I can come up with a different drafting. I could speak with my colleague over there.
The Chair: If I may respectfully ask that you have a discussion with Senator Cotter and Senator Boisvenu, and if you agree, we stand this down.
Is that acceptable, senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Then we bring it back tomorrow.
Senator Dalphond: I prefer that than to write amendments to the Criminal Code on a corner of a table. You know my aversion to that.
The Chair: No. Everybody’s aversion.
Senators, I cannot go on to the next clause, because Senator Dalphond has another amendment on the same clause.
Senator Dalphond: It is not the same page, though.
Mr. Palmer: This one is labelled PJD-S205-2-2-8.
Senator Dalphond: Shall I explain? If we go to page 2 of the bill.
[Translation]
If we go to the ninth line of the bill, in subsection (14) called “Copy to victim,” Senator Boisvenu proposed adding an existing paragraph to be read at a victim’s request; it mentions that it should be read at the request of the accused’s intimate partner or a victim of the offence. The justice simply gives him a copy of the order in application of this section.
The new section that he proposes, which is (14.1), says that upon making an order under subsection (2) — these are general conditions with respect to the conditional release order — the justice must check that the accused’s intimate partner and any victim of the offence have been informed of their right to request a copy of the order, namely the judge’s order for a conditional release. So I have a question I’d like to ask Senator Boisvenu, because I’m not sure that I understand the purpose of his proposed amendment. If I look at (14.1) —
[English]
The judge, before imposing the conditions for the judicial interim release:
. . . must ask the prosecutor whether intimate partners of the accused and victims of the offence have been informed of their right to request a copy of the order.
The way I read it, the Crown, or I should say the prosecutor, should inform the judge that they spoke with intimate partners.
“Intimate partner” is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. It refers to all intimate partners, past or current, of the person. I guess that means the Crown has to get some information from the police about who the intimate partners are, past and current, in addition to the victims.
When a victim goes to the police and makes a complaint, a charge is laid. The person is arrested and then will appear before the judge asking to be released. The Crown then has to mention to other persons who are not the victim or the alleged victim — victim or victims — that they should be involved in the process.
I’m not sure if that’s what it means, or if we should read the provision as saying “intimate partners” and “victims” are synonymous, or depending on the provisions to which he refers. Is that general victims under section 515(2), and the intimate partners are something else in the Code? I don’t know. Does he want the Crown to find who the intimate partners are and to speak to these people?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Usually, the intimate partner is relatively easy to find. The abuser is unlikely to have five intimate partners as victims. Usually it’s one and one only. The purpose of this section is really to ensure compliance with the right to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. The victim or the complainant wants to be informed of the conditions.
Senator Dalphond: You appear to be taking it farther than that by saying that the plaintiff and any person considered an intimate partner must be contacted. If someone is accused of fraud or bank robbery, the Crown has to be able to say that it consulted the person at the bank who complained of the robbery and also consult intimate partners to ask them whether they want to be informed of the release order for the person accused of the bank robbery. That’s what I don’t understand. Section (14.1) applies to every provision of section 515.
Senator Boisvenu: You’re right, there are instances where there has been a current partner as well as previous partners. In a neighbourhood in Saint-Jérôme, there were three women assaulted by the same person and all three cases are in court. So what we’re talking about here is informing the victim, but also, if there are two other victims involved in the court proceedings, informing other intimate partners as well. So, yes, there can be cases where there is more than one victim, and I was reminded of the three women assaulted by the same abuser, with three trials being conducted in parallel.
Senator Dalphond: The words toute victime in French and the plural “victims” in English, imply that all victims will be consulted. That would cover the example you gave of the three victims who would be entitled. Why would others also be entitled if they were not complainants, or a former or current intimate partner?
Senator Boisvenu: You’re more knowledgeable than I am about wording, having worked in that field for years. If the wording needs to be more detailed, I don’t have a problem with that.
Senator Dupuis: What if we were to say “at the request of a victim of the offence”?
Senator Boisvenu: I would say “one or more.”
Senator Dupuis: Because it’s related to one offence, wouldn’t there be more offences if we were to add some singular and plural words to make things clear? Would you like me to put the question differently?
I certainly understand how we might end up with one accused and several victims. The trials are not combined and even sometimes in different regions on different dates. What would you like to say in instances like that, and to whom? We know that in one of the trials, there is one victim. We have to make sure that victim is given a copy of the order made. What more would you like to see happen in connection with this accused? That’s what I’ve been trying to understand.
Senator Boisvenu: I’m thinking of the current victim. Of course, if there is another parallel trial in another court district — that’s the case in the example I gave you — ,we have another victim and the accused.
Senator Dupuis: So the other victim is the intimate partner of the accused you’re talking about.
Senator Boisvenu: If we’re talking about spousal violence, then the context always involves an intimate partner; we always have the spouse or ex-spouse. It’s not a case of a stranger committing assault. We’re in a completely different area of violence. For spousal violence, there is always a reference to an intimate partner, and that’s the expression used most often.
Senator Dupuis: As soon there’s an accused charged with several crimes against the person in a context of spousal violence, you want every victim of that accused to receive a copy of the orders made.
Senator Boisvenu: In principle, yes, there were three charges and three victims. The three victims would like to have the same kind of information because there is a risk that they will be in different districts, regions and under different conditions. Victims must, in such instances, when they are all victims of the same offender, have the same right, which is to know what conditions have been imposed in connection with their complaints.
Senator Dupuis: Does that mean that we would like each victim to receive an order as soon as the accused is charged with an offence, even if it is not an offence against them, but rather other persons in other regions?
Senator Boisvenu: In principle, the victim will be informed of conditions placed on her assailant. The victim we want to protect is the one who was assaulted.
Senator Dupuis: That’s why I’m trying to understand why you added, “an intimate partner of the accused, if requested by that intimate partner.”
Senator Boisvenu: The intimate partner and the victim are the same person, in the French version.
Senator Dupuis: The intimate partner is the same person as the victim.
Senator Boisvenu: We use “intimate partner” because that’s the relationship between them. The word “victim” refers to their status and “intimate partner” indicates the relationship. When you’re a victim, you’re not in a relationship, but rather a situation, a victim of violence.
Senator Dupuis: We’re talking about one and the same person here.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, one and the same person.
Senator Dupuis: Okay, I just wanted to clarify it. I’m not sure that it’s clear in French.
Senator Dalphond: If that’s what is meant by the explanation given by Senator Boisvenu, and that’s how I read it the first time, but when I was rereading it to prepare for today, I began to have doubts. I thought that it might have been referring to other people, but if the person at issue is the victim, then the current subsection 14, “if requested by that intimate partner” is sufficient. So when in the following new paragraph that was proposed, I’m not against the principle, but the third line should read as “the justice shall check with the complainant that all victims of the offence have been informed,” and that would achieve the desired objective. That’s what my amendment says. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak to Senator Boisvenu, but my goal was to avoid redundancy and establish a kind of obligation to speak to people who, while they may not be victims, are former intimate partners. They need to be found, but we no longer know where they live or what they think, etc.
Senator Boisvenu: I fully agree with you.
Senator Dupuis: So it be would be enough to remove “an intimate partner of the accused” and to keep “a copy of an order . . . be given to an intimate partner of the accused, if requested by that intimate partner,” and in the other paragraph: “the justice shall check with the complainant that all victims of the offence have been informed of their right to request a copy.”
Senator Dalphond: Exactly. The amendment only affects lines 15 and 16, and lines 9 to 12 are not affected because they are not covered by my amendment, and would remain as is.
[English]
Senator Batters: Maybe I’m not understanding this part correctly, but, Senator Boisvenu, was this section also meant to protect the current intimate partner of the person who is charged with domestic violence in this particular section by providing them with this information? Is that part of your intention?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, somewhere.
[Translation]
How can we do it now? Basically, the senator said that there is a victim who reports the assailant, but the assailant is with another intimate partner. Should this new partner be informed? That’s really what the question is about.
Senator Dupuis: I think that Senator Batters reworded the question I asked at the outset.
I believe that what you wanted to do, and I think it’s clear why, is that we want to settle the matter of the victim. She’s the one who needs to be dealt with to ensure that the order she wants is made.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: The purpose of the amendment is to restrict it to the victim or victims involved in the case. There are three in the Saint-Jérôme example you gave us. However, the intent is not to extend the obligation to consult other people. If the objective is the one mentioned by Senator Batters, then the way you have worded it means something else.
The intent of my amendment was to refer to the victim, and hence the complainant. I use the feminine because in 80% of cases, the victims are women.
Senator Dupuis: To be more neutral, the wording could refer to “the complainant.”
Senator Dalphond: That’s what I wanted to say, in order to be more neutral.
[English]
The Chair: You all have been very patient, and there is a lot of discussion about this. We cannot proceed with clause 2, because there are two amendments. I think you will agree with me. So I leave it to all the learned people who are looking at this to work on what it should be. May I respectfully ask you that you make it clearer so that nobody is any doubt? Is that acceptable, senators? Thank you so much.
We will now move to clause 3. Clause 2 stands. Senators, do you agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Dalphond: It seems that someone is working more on the detail. I guess I’m the one.
Mr. Palmer: I’ll clarify the number for everyone. PJD-S205-3-3-28.
Senator Dalphond: Yes. The change here —
The Chair: Just a moment, please. Does everyone have this? It’s 3-3-28.
Senator Cotter, do you have it?
Senator Cotter: I have it on the screen, but I also see that 3-3-18 also deals with clause 3.
Senator Dalphond: Maybe we should go in the order, 3-3-18 first, before 3-3-28.
The Chair: Senators, so that there’s no confusion, it is now 3-3-18. Thank you for your patience.
Senator Dalphond: This proposed amendment was shared with everyone before the meeting. Essentially, it is to remove again the issue of training and compulsory training, but here we’re not dealing with 515. We’re dealing with 810, the conditions that somebody will take an undertaking and be relieved from the process.
As I said, it’s not something that is related to the presumption of innocence. Because the person says, “Okay, I’ll take undertaking under 810 and there won’t be legal proceedings following.” And if you breach these conditions, you’re in breach of conditions and not charged with the original charge. So it’s a slight distinction against another distinction that legal proceedings and criminal proceedings make. Unless other people are concerned about it — based on the explanations that were briefly discussed with Senator Boisvenu earlier — I could live with it the way it’s drafted now.
The Chair: Do you withdraw your amendment?
Senator Dalphond: I will withdraw it unless somebody says no, it has to be kept. My understanding is it’s different from 515. It’s a different context. It’s not leading to a trial.
The Chair: Does everybody agree? Okay.
We go to the next one, senators, 3-3-28.
Senator Dalphond: This one is in the logic of what was developed before, just adding the words “with the consent of the Attorney General.” I know we agreed to discuss that issue in connection with the previous section, so I suggest we suspend it because I think whatever we reach on the other one will be reflected there.
The Chair: Okay. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: At the moment, shall clause 3 stand? Senators, does everybody agree that clause 3 stands?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now, that’s the problem.
Senator Dalphond: Section 4 you could do because there are very technical things. We just referred to —
The Chair: Yes, it’s just that they are consequential.
Mr. Palmer: I’ve been told by the Law Clerk that clauses 4 to 11 are consequential to clause 3. So if we’re standing clause 3, we should stand the rest.
Senator Dalphond: If you want. But subsection 3 is stood not because it won’t be there. It’s whether that’s going to be there with the words “with the consent of the Attorney General” or without these words, but the provision will remain.
Mr. Palmer: Because of procedurals we can’t assume it will be there necessarily.
The Chair: Let’s stand it until tomorrow. We have tomorrow.
Senator Dalphond: Okay. Anyway, it’s only technicalities. It will be passed fast.
The Chair: You said that before.
Senator Dalphond: Because there’s no amendment proposed, I think, by anybody.
The Chair: We have all the time in the world.
We will go to clause 12. Senators, I think this leaves the bill with not much left. May I suggest that we stop now?
Senator Dalphond: Sorry to interrupt, but there’s the last amendment, clause 12, which is also very technical. But since we have two bills that are like two ships crossing the sea but in different directions in the middle of the night — I guess there is Bill-233, which has the same goals and some amendments are the same, and there is this bill that has the same thing. I did not come up with this, of course. I didn’t write this part. But you may have suspected that our friends who are assisting us in drafting amendments have proposed here that we have what we call —
The Chair: This is clause 12, right?
Senator Dalphond: Yes. It’s coordinating amendments. It means whatever comes first makes the other one irrelevant and vice versa.
Mr. Palmer: I’m being advised by the Law Clerk that this amendment, the new clause amendment, depends on your first amendment of clause 2.
Senator Dalphond: Fine. That being said, I’m just telling you, if you have a problem to go to bed tonight, maybe you can read it. You’ll find it interesting.
The Chair: Senators, with your consent, I would like to adjourn now, and we will come back tomorrow and complete the study of Bill S-205. Tomorrow we will have no witnesses.
Thank you very much, senators, for your patience. This was very enlightening. We’ll see you tomorrow. We’ll continue tomorrow at 11:30 a.m.
(The committee adjourned.)