Justice Committee on June 12th, 2013

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

As we have already told you, we were given a deadline for our amendments even before we had heard from all the witnesses. Once again, there seems to be a desire to reduce speaking time. We have had difficulties in this committee. On several occasions, we have moved to clause-by-clause study even before hearing from all the witnesses.

In this case, we had until Monday at 4:00 p.m. to submit all our amendments. But we are still hearing from witnesses today, including Ms. O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

In her statement, there was information that we thought was interesting and is related to this amendment we're putting forward. We've asked for the residence of the accused to be put forward, but she also had specific recommendations, including:

...that victims be advised of the location of the forensic facility where the accused is detained; that victims be given advance notice of any scheduled absence, either escorted or unescorted, from the hospital, and the general destination, city or town, to which the accused will be travelling; that victims be given advance notice of the destination of release or conditional discharge, or if the accused, on conditional discharge, will be travelling to the vicinity of the victims; that victims be informed of any conditions of release for the accused when they are conditionally discharged into the community—this may include such things as mandated medication or treatment, non-communication with children or others, the requirement to attend treatment sessions, general mobility restrictions, and more—and that victims be given advance notice of any scheduled transfer to another facility or change in the level of security of their ward, or move by the accused to another province or territory, for the purpose of treatment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are you moving that word for word, those changes, as a subamendment to your amendment?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I would maybe ask, with the analysts, so that we can—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm telling you that if this is the case we would need that in writing so that we would be able to analyze it. It's only fair to other members of the committee. If you have it in writing, if that is exactly what you're moving, you could cut it out and photocopy it, or whatever, and refer them to it—I have you on the list, don't worry—but I need to understand.

Are you moving that as a subamendment?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I will if you give me the time, and if I can work with the analysts, in terms of just taking it out so that we can use the correct language. It is in both French and English and it is part of the brief that the witness gave us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

We have other commenters, so we can go there.

Monsieur Goguen, on the subamendment.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Maybe we could set the clause aside, let you prepare it, and come back to it. We may as well have it so we can appreciate what you're moving. Without passing judgment on it, good or bad or otherwise, let's just get it in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So do you want me, as the chair, to bypass clause 7 and come back to it?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's what I'd suggest. That would get you the chance to put your stuff together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, that's a recommendation.

Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Just on that, when we get amendments they're very specific. With amendment NDP-1, it talks about “replacing line 14 on page 3 with the following”. We're able to look at that, and then look at the section, and see what the section looks like when it's done. When somebody just reads something into the record, we don't necessarily have the opportunity to do that, to see how it's going to look.

We also have to understand how it's going to fit into the section. The section has a subtitle called “Notice of discharge”. Does it fit within that? Does it have to be a new section? I'm not saying this a bad idea. I agree this is testimony we've heard. But there's a danger in just throwing something into a statute by reading something into the record. I don't think it's an effective way to draft legislation for the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So what I'll do—Mr. Albas, I'll come to you next—based on the input from the committee, I will set this aside, and we'll come back to it at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I just have a follow-up on Mr. Seeback's comments.

One of the challenges you have is that these are the concepts that, obviously, Ms. O'Sullivan thought necessary to bring to the committee's attention. The problem is that we've had other bills come to this committee where we say, “Are we going to be creating tension because there may be terms that are not defined in the Criminal Code that may conflict with other parts of the Criminal Code?” Again, this may cause unintended consequences that will not serve the public interest.

As much as I understand what the member has asked for, and as much as I know that the parliamentary secretary is always willing to work with people on good ideas, one of the challenges here is that these words have not been vetted, at least in my opinion, to such an extent where I could feel comfortable taking them and literally sticking them into my Criminal Code, knowing that it's going to be, at the end of the day, a better Criminal Code for it. I just hope the opposition recognizes that fact.

Again, not to take away from what the parliamentary secretary says, I just have a real concern when we are making amendments on the fly and not studying them as measured legislators.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We did however have a chance to look at NDP-1, which is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

My point, Mr. Mai, not just in this committee but in all committees is that we ask for amendments in advance so legal can look at these things. Those are the kinds of items that get looked at in between times.

I agree. In my view committees need to decide whether there needs to be a break between witnesses and clause-by-clause. We decided not in this case, but maybe in the future it's something to look at.

We'll ask the ministry to comment.

[Carole Morency, Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't sure if the decision is to come back to this, but it may assist the committee in deciding the way forward. We obviously would need some time to look at these details as well but it might help the committee to understand that, for example, the ombudsman's submission says that victims should be advised of the location of the forensic facility where the accused is detained. This information is available right now in the disposition decision that is made publicly available. It's the type of thing that you wouldn't necessarily want to see in the Criminal Code or without thinking it through more thoroughly.

We're looking at this at the same time—we just got it at the break—about providing advanced notice to the victim when there might be an escorted absence into the community. In my understanding those are the types of decisions that are made at the clinical level, at the hospital that's managing the care and treatment of the NCR-accused. Those are decisions that might be made with very little notice. It might be because an opportunity presents itself. It might have broader implications than we've had an opportunity to consider. But if it assists the committee, I'd offer that at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that advice.

Mr. Mai and then Mr. Goguen.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much to everyone here for your understanding.

Again, I appreciate that we need to have all the information before, that we need to have some of the amendments before we can have something looked at and not have something on the fly as I just moved.

I'd like to remind you that we had our deadline for the amendments before we heard all the witnesses. That was because of a motion that was brought forward by the Conservatives with respect to forcing the opposition, or us, to bring forward all the amendments even before we heard witnesses, even today. Does that mean that witnesses who come after the deadline are not as important?

I know you're not saying that, but I'm saying that if we want to have amendments, we should listen to all the witnesses before we can put forward amendments. In this case, according to the motion, we had to put forward amendments before we heard all the witnesses. That's why we're working on the fly. I appreciate that it is not the way we should do it.

Honestly, the idea here, when we reacted to what the witnesses said, is we need to have more information for victims. That was very clear. All the victims have said that. The victims' associations have said they need more information to protect victims. This is why in reaction to that we have come up with the amendments.

I appreciate that it is on the fly because of the motion the Conservatives put forward, which is not allowing us to look at all the testimony before we can make amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Officials, could some of this stuff be incorporated by a regulation under the act?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

The section is 672.44 under rules made by a review board. It authorizes under subsection (3) that:

Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Governor in Council may make regulations to provide for the practice and procedure before Review Boards, in particular to make the rules of Review Boards uniform, and all regulations made under this subsection prevail over any rules made under subsection (1).

I just throw that out. Could that be the place where we perhaps say that maybe the committee can make the recommendation that some of these things be put forward in that? I don't know if that's the proper place for it or not, so I'm going to put you two on the spot and ask you your thoughts about that.

[Julie Besner, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thanks very much for the question.

Yes, it's true that there's an empowering provision in the code for the review boards to make rules, and they do so. I would like to add—and of course it's up to the committee if they wish to make that kind of recommendation—that they should just bear in mind, however, that those regulations are not federal regulations. They are regulations made by the review boards to govern their own procedures.

Another contextual point I think the committee should bear in mind is that the subsection that's being amended here is within a section of the Criminal Code that deals with the procedure to follow during hearings before the review boards.

That's just something to bear in mind when you consider the subject matter of the floor motion here and whether it fits into that overall scheme.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Would it fit into that section, in your view?

[Julie Besner]

The list is very detailed. It doesn't fit naturally, I think, with the other types of rules that are applicable during hearings in which there are two parties being heard and the decision-maker is coming to a decision, so it's difficult.