Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 6, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:16 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

Senator Jane Cordy (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

The Deputy Chair: My name is Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia, and I’m the deputy chair of this committee. Before we begin, I’d like to go around the table and have senators introduce themselves.

[Translation]

Senator Boudreau: Good afternoon. I am Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.

[English]

Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Mi’kmaq territory, Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

Senator Burey: I am Sharon Burey from Ontario.

Senator Cormier: I am René Cormier from New Brunswick.

Senator Petitclerc: I am Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.

Senator Dagenais: I am Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.

Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Today we are considering clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

I’d like to welcome back officials from Women and Gender Equality, Justice Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada. Available to answer questions if needed, from Women and Gender Equality Canada, we have Crystal Garrett-Baird, Director General, Gender-Based Violence. From Justice Canada, we have Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Stéphanie Bouchard, Senior Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we have Mary-Luisa Kapelus, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have Nathalie Nepton, Director General, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector.

Thank you all for being here. They will not be testifying today, but if we run into questions as we’re doing clause by clause, we can call them to the table to answer concerns or whatever you’d like them to answer for us.

Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points.

First, if at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.

Second, in terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause.

Third, if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.

Fourth, some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.

Fifth, because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.

Sixth, if committee members ever have any questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter on a point of order and make a ruling.

Seventh, the committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.

Eighth, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.

Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. In other words, it’s turned down.

Are there any questions on the procedure?

Senator Manning, as the sponsor of the bill, we’re going to call on you first.

Senator Manning: May I preface my remarks by thanking the committee for their work on this bill. I believe we have found a way to get to the finish line, and hopefully we will be able to do that today. I believe the clerk has circulated all the amendments that I have proposed.

I’d like to move, pursuant to rule 10-5, that the committee reconsider clause 2.

The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed that clause 2 as amended be reconsidered?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: That’s agreed.

Senator Manning: I move that notwithstanding the decision of the committee on October 9, 2024, the amendment labelled FM-S249-2-1-10 be defeated.

The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?

Senator Manning: Madam chair, as my first amendment, I would like to move:

That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 2, on page 1,

(a) by replacing lines 9 to 12 of the English version with the following:

“ing partner. (partenaire intime)”;

(b) by deleting lines 15 to 20;

“partenaire intime S’entend notamment de l’époux, du conjoint de fait ou du partenaire amoureux, actuels ou anciens, d’une personne. (intimate partner)”.

The rationale for this amendment, senators, is that this updated amendment adds, after line 17 of the French version, partenaire intime, along with the definition. This is also reflected in the rest of the bill. The removal of the definitions is required between lines 15 to 20 because they are referenced in paragraphs 3(2)(6) and 3(2)(d). It’s proposed that these paragraphs be removed.

The Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or any discussion?

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: I don’t understand what’s being deleted.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Senator Manning, can you explain again what is being deleted?

Senator Manning: We are deleting lines 15 to 20. It is basically taking out the definition of “nurse practitioner.”

Senator Mégie: Thank you. I understand.

The Deputy Chair: Any further discussion?

Is it necessary to read it again? You’ve all got it in front of you, anyway, I believe. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Agreed.

Shall clause 2 as amended carry?

Senator Manning: I move, pursuant to rule 10-5, that the committee reconsider clause 3.

The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Agreed.

Senator Manning: I move that notwithstanding the decision of the committee on October 9, 2024, the amendment labelled FM-S249-3-2-1a be defeated.

The Deputy Chair: Is it carried? Carried.

Shall clause 3 carry?

Senator Manning: I’d like to move:

That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 3, on page 2,

(a) by replacing lines 1 to 9 with the following:

“3 (1) The Minister must continue to lead national action to prevent and address intimate partner violence.

“(2) In leading national action to prevent and address intimate partner violence, the Minister must engage with other federal and with provincial ministers responsible for the status of women, on an annual basis, and with Indigenous partners, victims and survivors and stakeholders, on a regular basis, with respect to”;

(b) by replacing lines 14 and 15 with the following:

“(b) partnerships in the preven-”;

“(c) the financial and other costs of action to prevent and address intimate partner violence; and

(d) any constitutional, legal or jurisdictional implications of action to prevent and address intimate partner violence.

(3) The engagements referred to in subsection (2) must ”.

For the rationale for this amendment, senators, with a focus on actions to prevent intimate partner violence, this change underscores the need for ongoing engagement with federal, provincial and territorial partners while aligning this work with the existing engagement mechanisms that are already in place to provide advice and guidance on the ongoing implementation of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.

Further, it is critical that the full range of partners be reflected, not just the ones listed in the current version of the bill. The current wording is narrow and does not recognize other key partnerships that can help prevent intimate partner violence. The proposed amendment will expand the scope of the partnerships beyond those currently listed in paragraph 3(2)(b), including ways to hear from health care professionals who support IPV victims in health care settings.

This amendment will also recognize that engagements are continuing as a regular part of the ongoing implementation of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.

Through the Forum of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for the Status of Women, the minister personally meets with national Indigenous leaders and representatives as a collective annually. At the officials levels, there are meetings with senior officials responsible for national Indigenous leaders and representatives bilaterally and multilaterally at least once a year. Plus, the Indigenous Women’s Circle meets regularly. The terms are being re-established with changing memberships, so the frequency of the meetings may change.

We also engaged with the Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and had direct outreach.

The bottom line is that we dictate when the regular meetings would take place because they’re already well established.

The Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments for Senator Manning? Would you like me to read it again, or can I just ask that it be adopted? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Agreed.

Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?

Senator Manning: I move:

That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing lines 1 to 5 with the following:

“4 (1) Within two years after this Act receives royal assent and every two years after that, the Minister must prepare a report setting out progress on action to prevent and address intimate partner violence and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament.”.

The Deputy Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Senator Manning: Madam Chair, I would move that clause 5 be defeated.

My rationale for voting down clause 5 is that clauses 4 and 5 have now been merged into what we just passed in clause 4. “To take into consideration an action to prevent and address intimate partner violence in Canada” is under way through the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence while demonstrating accountability to report to Parliament. When we passed clause 4, we put in place a timeline which ensures that the minister, he or she, would have to report to Parliament every two years. Therefore, we don’t need clause 5 as in the original bill. We don’t need clause 5 now.

The Deputy Chair: You’re suggesting that clause 5 should be defeated?

Senator Manning: Yes.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: No.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?

Senator Manning: I would like to move:

That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:

“1 This Act may be cited as Georgina’s Law.”.

Renaming Bill S-249 as “An Act respecting Georgina’s Law” respects the raison d’etre for the bill while being survivor centric. As many of you know, Ms. Georgina McGrath from Branch, Newfoundland and Labrador, appeared before our committee and was the impetus for this bill. In our conversations with the department, we have decided to put forward an amendment to have the bill referred to as “An Act respecting Georgina’s Law,” to put a personal touch to it and have her story, as part of many stories in our country, and put a face to the bill. That’s exactly what this bill is about.

The Deputy Chair: Senator Manning is moving:

That Bill S-249 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:

“1 This Act may be cited as Georgina’s Law.”.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Agreed.

Shall clause 1, as amended, which contains the short title, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?

Senator Manning: I’d like to move:

That Bill S-249 be amended on page 1 by replacing the long title with the following:

“An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence”.

As the rationale behind this amendment, this change focuses on the actions to prevent intimate partner violence and not the development of the formal duplicative national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. Additionally, “national” means that the provinces and territories will be part of the strategy, but that is outside federal jurisdiction. In the engagement the minister has with the provinces and territories now, those discussions will be had as they develop and continue with the action plan.

It also includes “violence entre partenaires intimes” in the French part of the bill, which is an update from an older version of the bill. You have in front of you the way it is spelled. I’m not sure if I said it properly.

The Deputy Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall the title, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Agreed.

Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No? I don’t see any hands or hear any voices.

Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate in both official languages?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: There being no further business, this meeting is now adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)