Evidence of meeting #46 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victim.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Toone from the New Democratic Party.
5 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the witnesses. It has been a pleasure. This is very interesting.
I would like to continue on the same topic. The minister himself raised this issue during his testimony. I would also like to point out that section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act does deal with couples, but only opposite-sex couples.
In Canada, same-sex marriage is legal. However, section 4(3) bothers me. I will quote the English version, which reads as follows:
No husband is compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during their marriage, and no wife is compellable to disclose any communication made to her by her husband during their marriage.
It seems that the bill under consideration did not address the fact that there is an inconsistency in the law. Moreover, in light of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, I think that there is a constitutional problem here.
Could you please comment on this?
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would agree that that is an issue, and it is an issue that is currently being litigated before some of the courts. Bill C-32 is not addressing that other broader consideration, but it is looking to make the evidence of any spouse available.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Even if that is before the courts, don't we have an opportunity today to correct this error?
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That would be a question for the minister.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Seeing as the minister isn't here right now, I was hoping that maybe one of you could answer it.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I see. We're back to question period quality of debates, I guess. Sorry about that, but—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
That really wasn't fair, Mr. Toone. The officials are here to answer the questions they are entitled to answer. If there is a question that should have been asked of the minister, they will often tell us that it is not within their purview or their responsibility to answer. That has nothing to do with their not being willing to answer. It is their legal responsibility, and that is what they're doing.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Very good, Mr. Chair.
I will continue with another question, a bit more specific, on clause 3 of the proposed bill of rights. The French version of this clause seems to be more restrictive than the English version.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. According to the French version, only one individual is authorized to act on behalf of the victim if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf.
However, the English version appears to authorize more than one individual to act on behalf of the victim, as it reads, “Any of the following individuals...”. The French version is therefore much more restrictive than the English version.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
5:05 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice
Thank you for your question.
That is not how I understand the bill, but now that you've asked that question, I can see that there is some room for interpretation.
For us, the intent of this provision is that anyone in the list may act on behalf of the victim if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
The legislative intent is then to broadly identify the people who could act on behalf of the victims when the victims are incapable of doing so.
5:05 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice
Yes, that's it.
I can also assure the committee that Justice Canada always conducts a bijural and bilingual analysis of bills before introducing them.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
That's fine.
The intent is clear and I think that's the most important thing.
In this case I'll go to a wider question.
The proposed bill of rights speaks often of rights. It doesn't really speak of principles; it's speaking of rights. At the same time, it doesn't create any cause of action. If somebody feels that their right has been breached, they don't seem to have any recourse. It's a particular kind of right that we seem to be creating here.
Could you explain to me what kind of rights we're dealing with? Maybe the question could be in this case, are we not giving them right of recourse because it exists already at the provincial level? Is it because jurisdictionally we're having a problem? Or is it because we really didn't want to give them any recourse if we feel that the rights we are affording in the new bill have been breached and we really don't want them to be able to pursue the federal government, for instance?
5:05 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice
As the minister indicated, I think the intention of the government is to create enforceable rights. The choice that the government made was that those rights would be enforceable through a complaint mechanism. The bill provides what that complaint mechanism must include: an ability to receive the complaint, review the complaint, make recommendations, and report back to the victim.
This bill differs quite significantly from provincial and territorial legislation that you might be familiar with in that the rights here are very clearly stated as rights. Provincial and territorial legislation includes language such as “victim should” and “government should”. One of the key differences here, which indicates the character of the rights that the government is wanting to create, is that rights are expressed that way, that victims “have a right to...”.
With regard to a question one of your colleagues asked about standing, the government's intention in creating the complaint mechanism was that, one, it reflected what had been heard in consultations, and two, it empowers employees to make changes in their thinking and in their approach to their duties that will reflect the fact that the concerns of victims and the needs of victims should be part of the exercise of those duties.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Goguen.
October 9th, 2014 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you for your testimony. I know it's hard to answer a lot of these technical questions. I suspect a number of you are lawyers, and it's always more fun to ask the question than to answer it, for sure.
In any event, I'm looking at clause 9 of the Canadian victims bill of rights, which recognizes that all victims have “the right to have their security considered by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system”.
The question is to what extent the appropriate authorities would be obligated to take measures to provide for the security of victims.
As a sub-question, are the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service of Canada appropriate authorities obligated to take these measures to provide the security of victims?
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
With respect to the security, for example, I think I made mention of the fact that the parole board will be required to impose reasonable and necessary safety conditions following a victim impact statement that highlights concerns over security, provided those measures are necessary and reasonable. Those would be measures such as non-contact orders or geographic restrictions, for example. The parole board is required to go forward with those considerations. If they have safety or security concerns and do not proceed with imposing such restrictions, they have to make sure they provide that in writing.
I don't know if the commissioner would like to respond on behalf of Corrections.
5:10 p.m.
Don Head Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Sure. Thank you.
I have just a couple of points to add.
We have victims who come into our institutions now to attend parole board hearings. One of the things we're very conscious of is their safety and security while they're in the institution. We have a good track record around providing physical protection for victims but also of providing emotional support for them as well. As you can well imagine, walking into that kind of environment and facing somebody who has committed a harm to you can result in a significant emotional reaction. We also have that kind of support.
As was pointed out, in terms of individuals out in the community, decisions that are made by our wardens of the institutions have to take into account any issues raised by the victims regarding their safety, in terms of decisions they may be able to make around escorted temporary absences or even unescorted temporary absences. In addition, as we go forward we'll be looking at how we can use technology to help enhance our ability to monitor offenders who may be out in the community under conditional release, so if they have those kinds of geographic restrictions, we can stay on top of those and ultimately provide the safety and security that victims are looking for from us.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
There was talk earlier about mediation. One can imagine how difficult it would be for someone who is a victim to confront their accused, but there seems to be more and more demand for mediation services. Victims do not automatically receive information about the offenders who harm them. I guess they have to submit a written request to the Correctional Service of Canada or the parole board.
I'm wondering about victims who have just submitted a general request for information to Correctional Service of Canada or the parole board. Will they be advised if they just submit a general request about the availability of mediation services?
5:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
As an organization, we're going to be proactive in that regard. Currently, we have just over 7,700 registered victims in relation to about 4,000 offenders. Through our victim service officers, we have been advising them of the opportunities for victim-offender mediation for restorative justice opportunities. We're going to continue to pursue that proactively and allow them to be aware of the kinds of services that can be made available and that they may want to access.
This is one where we're going to be out in front and with the work that we're going to be doing jointly with the Parole Board of Canada, in terms of creating a web portal, that information will also be available to them on the net.
5:15 p.m.
Richard Clair Executive Director General, Parole Board of Canada
The Parole Board of Canada doesn't provide mediation. That's a service provided by Correctional Service of Canada. We have about the same number of registered victims. We have over 7,500 and we have specialized staff, as does the Correctional Service of Canada, cross-country, who provide information to victims.
Whatever information we can disclose, or may disclose, we do so. Not everybody wants to attend a parole board hearing. Last year, we had about 250 people attending. We can provide them with information if they request it.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madame Boivin.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions will deal with the much-despised victim surcharge. I'm thinking of clause 31.
In your opinion, do the amendments proposed in this regard address the cases currently before the courts, specifically, certain disputes concerning the method or time of payment? Will this have an impact on cases that are now before various courts, including the Court of Appeal of Quebec?
Does the term “reasonable time” afford the court enough discretion? I'm trying to understand what this provision is designed to do.
5:15 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice
With respect to the litigation, we are aware of some thirty cases related to the application of the surcharge. The provision, or the proposed amendment, only deals with the aspect of payment within a reasonable time.
The cases before the courts deal with not only this issue but also the offender's ability to pay this surcharge. In terms of the time to pay, we proposed the amendment to make it clear to the courts that a payment cannot be extended over dozens or hundreds of years, as was ruled by a number of courts.