Iqra Khalid

Thank you. I have a quick question. With respect to the amendments that have already been passed, do they have an impact on any of these clauses?

That's great. I have a lot of paperwork here, Madam Chair. I'm moving LIB-9, which again follows the broad intimate partner violence offence that was proposed in LIB-3. It would require the indictment or information to state which underlying offence, such as assault or criminal harassment, etc., was proven, ensuring clarity in the court's record. I think it would be really good for us to [more]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm moving this amendment because we just adopted a new broad intimate partner violence offence in LIB-3. The new offence that we adopted already applies higher maximum penalties to IPV offences, whether they are first or repeat offences. I don't think this provision is necessary anymore, because there is overlap. To that effect, this amendment would repeal subsection [more]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this amendment is about clarification. It's to clarify that the intimate partner manslaughter amendment would apply with respect to an offence committed on the 30th day after the bill receives royal assent, meaning that its application would be prospective.

I appreciate that. What do you think could be improved upon within this strategy to provide better support to seniors? Also, do you think that there's a need to establish perhaps an economic abuse code of conduct that sets out the framework as to what abuse looks like? There's an overlap with coercive control, as well as straight-out romance scams and financial scams, etc. I'm sure there's an [more]

Building on that, I'll turn to Ms. Côté and Ms. Blinco as well. From what Constable Payne has said, there seems to be a spectrum between abuse and vulnerability. Ultimately, when we're looking to protect seniors, there are three main aspects, in my point of view. There's financial security, there's personal safety and then there's dignified living, for which, as a whole of government, we need to [more]

I'm a little bit lost, actually. I don't know exactly where we are in the bill.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Constable Payne, you spoke about the vulnerability of seniors within the financial scamming picture. I wonder if you can talk to us a little bit about the national anti-fraud strategy that the government put in place in 2025. How is that impacting a lot of the work you're doing on the ground supporting seniors, protecting them proactively and [more]

Thank you, Chair. I'm moving this amendment as a consequential change following the new intimate partner manslaughter offence in clause 1.1. This sets out that if a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old receives a life sentence for this offence, the parole ineligibility period would be seven years, which is the same rule that applies to second-degree murder for young offenders as well. It's just to be [more]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm moving this amendment to ensure that the time spent in custody before sentencing is properly credited towards the parole ineligibility period for life sentences in cases of intimate partner manslaughter under clause 1.1. In simple terms, we're talking about aligning the rules with those that already apply to second-degree murder, ensuring consistency in the justice [more]

Thank you for that. C-225 Based on the concerns you outlined, are there any amendments you would propose for Billin its current form? If it's yes, can you please share them with us? If it's no, would you advise the committee to vote against this specific section of Bill C-225?