Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Toone from the New Democratic Party.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I have only five minutes, I will try to keep it brief. I hope the answers will also be brief.

I will start with you, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fortier.

Generally speaking, the provinces are very interested in Bill C-32. Quebec, among others, is very clearly saying it is prepared to work with the federal government. In fact, it is already laying the groundwork to realize victims' rights.

We often hear the criticism that the rights are rather conditional. Bill C-32 should be further crystallized, so that as much can be done as is already being done in the province.

How could this bill improve victims' rights? What can we do to help provinces move forward and become true partners? The rights are unclear.

Do you have any comments?

[Frank Tremblay]

What do you mean by “crystallize” rights?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The legislation states that “a victim may”, and especially that, “the Crown may”. That's not necessarily a right; it's almost a privilege.

What could we do to make Bill C-32 much more concrete and help the province move forward? I am not talking about financial assistance, although funding is a major issue. I am really talking about rights.

[Alain Fortier]

Bill C-32 gives a good base. Of course, we would always like more. In my remarks, I talked about the need to put reasonable timelines on the process. I would like the bill of rights to contain more rights. However, if it did contain more rights, would it then pass?

The bill of rights should be adopted as it stands. Then, depending on any problems that might arise, we would always be able to improve it as a result of the comments from people working with it on the ground.

[Frank Tremblay]

Looking at what is happening, I wonder whether we are not on the way to creating an empty shell that basically almost no one will work with. Crown prosecutors will not use it. Victims will not even be told it exists. They will show up at the criminal trial without having been told about the complaint process.

On the other hand, if we do not codify anything, we will never get anywhere. None of all this will be enforced.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Let me go back to the example you used. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets rights in stone. The rights in the Bill of Rights were almost completely ignored. Something had to be done.

In this case, we are codifying something very nebulous. We are trying to set some things in stone, but it is possible that we have not gone far enough.

[Frank Tremblay]

My inclination would be to tell you that the bill is a start.

What are we doing for victims? Are we doing enough? Go back 20 years. Alain went through a criminal trial. He went to court against his aggressor when he was 14 years old. He testified against him. At that time, his sexual past was not brought up, but it could be used in criminal court.

I see real advances. How will this bill of rights evolve? Will it be enforced?

There should be a minimum of restitution. It is difficult to sue someone in civil court. If you sue an aggressor for $25,000 or more, at least in Quebec, you have to go through interrogations out of court, and that is disgusting.

There is the limitation period, but that is another story. We could talk about that for a long time. Be that as it may, this bill moves things forward.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Ms. Jong, I hope I have the time to come back to you because I appreciated your testimony very much, especially when you talked about the definition of “victim”. In my opinion, there are gaps there and we should talk about them.

I'd like to speak to Chief Yesno.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have two minutes.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Perfect, thank you.

I very much appreciated your comments on the relatively new provisions for sentencing, on paragraph 718.2(e). If we have time I'd like to get back to that.

I would like to speak to the fact that the bill looks to create information for victims. One of the real problems is that we might create new rights here with this bill, but the victims won't necessarily know those rights exist. They won't necessarily know that they can call the police and feel reassured that they have these new provisions.

For those victims to know they have that access; somebody has to produce the information. Somebody has to produce the literature. The services have to be out on the ground.

Do you feel that the federal government is a partner in this with first nations? Is there more work to be done?

[Grand Chief Harvey Yesno]

Thank you for that question.

I'm most familiar, obviously, with the communities—I actually come from a remote community so I know about the services for whatever it is, whether policing and courts and the challenges that are there. What I can say for a lot of communities is that there is an inherent distrust that has built up over many years. I'm talking about the courts that I'm familiar with in our communities. It's probably less than 40 years that there have been any kind of courts. Talk about glacial movement—sometimes we view it more as rigor mortis and see it requiring divine intervention rather than science and medicine.

We do embrace the rights and respect the courts and so on. One of the biggest challenges we have experienced, whether in policing and courts, with the pace of these things is that it all boils down to a lot of it just being about the funding of support for services. That's why in our recommendations we're saying that we need a catch-up here to get a level playing field to restore justice in our communities and to have faith in justice. Our people do want and deserve the same thing as every other Canadian who can have justice, and I can understand, from what I'm hearing in the Q and A here, the frustration. I see that in our communities. It just exasperates that.

A lot of it is about resourcing, I believe, for the support services we do have, whether women's shelters or even for legal counsel. There's difficulty in getting adequate legal representation and enough courts to address the various levels of crime. That needs to be addressed. It is more of a resourcing issue than the law, really. The law is the law, and we believe it is the law for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Calkins, from the Conservative Party.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our presenters today. It has been very enlightening.

My first question is for you, Ms. Walker. You said in your statement that you wanted to talk a little bit more, if you had more time, about some of the issues the bill addresses when it comes to the accused not personally cross-examining the witness, and also spousal immunity and restitution orders. Would you like to take a few minutes to enlighten me as to what specifically the provisions of this legislation will do with regard to that?

[Megan Walker]

I responded to the immunity issue and the restitution, but I want to speak specifically about cross-examination.

One of the big fears, of course, that women have in testifying as witnesses when they're victims of domestic violence is that their abusive partner is going to be cross-examining them, because oftentimes that's a tactic of abuse as they defend themselves. So one of the things, again, that is really valuable is that the victim, through the prosecution, can apply to the judge so that the accused will not be personally cross-examine the witness, the victim. That's extremely positive. The judge or justice, if he or she is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires the accused to personally conduct the cross-examination, can appoint counsel to do that on behalf of the accused. That is a very important piece to have in place so that further abuse can't occur, nor further intimidation tactics.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

These were the kinds of things that, obviously, in your opinion... I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I've heard from several groups of witnesses who say that there are a lot of unreported incidents of these things because of the fear of getting into the system, the fear of the unknown of what's going to happen, the fear of retaliation and retribution, and all of the other things that go along with that. Hopefully, a lot of these things are changes that will provide those rights to the victims

If and when it comes into force—and I'm pretty confident the legislation will be passed—what is your expectation as far as the reporting of these crimes, the prosecution, successes, and so on, insofar as victims are concerned?

[Megan Walker]

I think that this bill removes a number of obstacles that women currently face reporting to police.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So we'll actually get an enhanced sense of justice. Would that be your perspective on that?

[Megan Walker]

I do believe that. I also think that we need to remember that nothing happens overnight. There's been some mention of that: how are we going to get this information out? I think that's an important issue to address. Maybe I'm not as up to date on politics as I was at one time, but I've always thought there were transfer payments made to the provinces from the federal government. Is that not accurate any longer?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm an Albertan. You don't want to go down that road with me.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Megan Walker]

But you do have the ability. You are the largest force, as a federal government, to make sure that you direct how information is distilled through to the provinces.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Yes. No, of course, the administration of justice, through things like transfer payments and so on, are dealt with in that regard, as rightfully they should be, because everybody should be receiving similar benefits on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

One more minute.

[Megan Walker]

I'm not saying you have to increase funding.