Evidence of meeting #49 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 recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre
You've asked me a question about whether this would actually address that. I think it's important that you let me answer that, because—
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre
But in fact, that's why I'm supporting this, because this addresses all of those concerns.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
It would make.... Oh, no, I'm very, if you say so.... Actually, was it not a fair assumption to say that it would not remove the fear of the spouse, that they would not feel afraid to file complaints against their—?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre
There will still be some fear, but this very clause that you've raised, or what is in clause 17, is one of the very reasons I support it. It allows women to testify as a witness and not have their identities disclosed. That's a very positive step.
It's a very positive step to be kept informed all the way through the process as a matter of legislation and not just as habit from municipality to municipality. It's a very positive step to have the pictures of the offenders posted to them when they're released from jail.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I'm not sure I follow. I'm trying to understand you. I didn't want to debate with you. I really am trying to understand, because I didn't read clause 17 the way you read it. You're actually reading it in the way that Mr. Krongold is worried about, the way that it would be interpreted at some point in time.
But in my example of a spouse who files a complaint, let's say for sexual assault against her spouse—I don't want to be sexist, but let's say that most often that's what happens—you're saying that you feel she won't feel fear because her identity will not be divulged. But the spouse will know—
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre
Well, part of the reason women go to court now.... When they go to court and perjure themselves or don't show up, it's because they're so fearful of telling the truth. They are fearful of what's going to happen when he's released from jail, if he's even convicted. That's what they often say to us: “If only we could testify and have him not know it's us.”
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Okay. I get your point.
Is that your understanding of clause 17? Is it the way that Ms. Walker is discussing it? I go back to my point on resources, because I know a lot of crown attorneys, and I talk to them and ask how they will have to act to apply the new charter of rights and if there will be people there for the victims.
Usually it's the crown attorney who gets the questions. Some crown attorneys already try to do what is mentioned there, but because of the number of cases, they're afraid they won't be able to deliver. What types of resources do you think will need to be added to make this charter efficient?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Member of the Board of Directors, Chair of the Legislation Committee, Criminal Lawyers' Association
Let me address the resource issue. I suppose the concern, generally speaking, is that if there were more judges, if there were more funding for litigants, and that includes legal aid, obviously, because a lot of accused persons are legally aided and the reality is that months and months can go by in the course of litigation in trying to get somebody a lawyer and trying to get that lawyer properly funded....
Those delays affect everybody adversely and obviously affect crown attorneys as well. There's a real potential that they're going to have a court day set aside for an important domestic assault trial that everybody wants to see done and wants to see done properly, but if applications get brought at the last second, if applications get brought that maybe don't have a lot of legal merit because people don't know their way around the system, or if somebody shows up and all of a sudden wants his or her own counsel to represent them, you're going to lose a court day.
That court day has a domino effect, because it means you're going to lose that court day, and then another court day down the line is going to be lost when that case is again rescheduled. These cases are important. The interests of everybody involved are important. The more we slow down the system with more laws, more administrative hurdles, and no more money, the consequences for everybody are pretty obvious, I think.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Monsieur Goguen.
October 30th, 2014 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First and foremost, thank you to all the witnesses.
Thank you for coming to meet with us.
Certainly there's a diversity of opinion, and it's by getting that diversity of opinion and drawing out the best elements of it that possibly we'll be able to improve this bill. As you all know, it's destined to give the victims an important place in the judicial system, so that they are not to be dragged along as a simple piece of evidence in testimony but be treated sympathetically to perhaps alleviate some of their fears and make them more apt to testify about the wrongdoing perpetrated against them.
I will first address Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fortier.
I'd like to get Ms. Jong's comments and then Ms. Walker's.
We have talked about delays in the consultation process. We have repeatedly been told that victims were very concerned by those delays. You talked about trials within a reasonable time frame.
Can you tell us why the delays are causing frustrations and problems for victims, and what the consequences of the delays are?
4:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin
Having experienced this in both civilian and criminal proceedings, I know that delays are a huge burden for victims because they prevent them from completing their healing process. They know full well that they will have to have a clear mind to be able to testify on what happened to them. So they will have a hard time relaxing fully in their therapy sessions until all the proceedings have come to an end. In the case of criminal appeal processes, we know that some trials can take seven years.
I have used the eye movement desensitization and reprocessing—EMDR—method in therapy sessions to treat the post-traumatic stress a person may experience after past sexual assaults. That method produces miracles, but it can also erase memories. Some order can be re-established, but that cannot be done until the trial is finished.
Longer delays slow down the healing process. That is why we are asking for delays to be kept reasonable. Long delays are almost inhumane for some victims. They may testify at the age of 12—preadolescence—and then have to testify again on past events as adults. That is extremely trying, as the healing process cannot be completed.
Alain, do you have anything to add?
4:25 p.m.
President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin
The problem for a victim is having to constantly remember everything that happened. In court, they will have to remember the date, location and all the exact details because the defence lawyer will often try to discredit them by pointing out errors or inconsistencies in their testimony. On the one hand, they have to try to remember everything, and on the other hand, they want to begin the healing process. However, when someone wants to heal, they want to forget. So the longer the proceedings, the more serious the repercussions.
A victims bill of rights will not lead to additional delays. Nevertheless, we have to reduce the delays by tackling hearing postponements, which, based on what we have seen, are often requested by offenders. Hearings are postponed over and over to try to discourage the victim. That is where the real problem lies.
I agree with Mr. Tremblay that more resources need to be invested in our judicial system. That is first on the list. There should also be some sort of a direct access mechanism that would make it possible for crimes against individuals to be processed more quickly than property crimes. Crimes against people have repercussions on our society and on societal costs.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
That's interesting.
Ms. Jong, did you want to comment on delays?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre
I think this bill will actually streamline our current resources. I think our best practices now will actually become consistent across the country through legislation. So what's going on in London, Ontario, will actually be carried on in Saskatoon. That's what should happen. Victims will now be treated equally across the country.
Just because we have resources in London, Ontario, that can work collaboratively with the criminal justice system and allow us to have best practices there, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have those same best practices available across the country. That's why I'm so in favour of this.
I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing Mr. Krongold's name properly, but he mentioned that this is going to codify best practices across the country, and that's really tremendously favourable for victims.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fortier talked about a reasonable delay. Now, this seems to have been contemplated in clause 20, which has been subject to some criticism. In essence, clause 20 speaks about the law not being interpreted in an unreasonable fashion that would in any way bother the good administration of justice, such as causing interference with investigations, the prosecution's discretion or, perhaps, the crown's discretion.
Do you feel that's a positive step in trying to expedite matters so that the administration of justice can proceed, Mrs. Walker?
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre
I disagree with it interfering with the crown's work. I think this is going to be really positive for the crown because, as I say, it's going to streamline the work. I didn't read it, as Mr. Krongold did, as adding procedures as a result of the increased participation of victims. What I read that to mean was guidelines where the crown attorneys and criminal justice service providers would have a method to communicate with victims, which was fairly straightforward, so they were not always responding to victims' phone calls asking where they're at. That's very positive. I think it would also keep victims in touch with the criminal justice service providers, so there will not be not ongoing delays, such as “Oh, my gosh, I couldn't reach this victim, so now we have to delay the court proceedings for another two weeks”, or whatever.
Again, I look at this very positively. I look at it as a way to speed up the court system, and there's nothing in this that shows me it's going to delay anything.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fortier, I would like to first hear your comments on clause 20 and the discretion of prosecutors and the police.
Do you think this approach is worthwhile?
4:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin
What will be the extent of that discretion? That is the question.
We think that clause 20 is important because it sets out parameters. In Canada, crimes are codified. We have the Criminal Code. These types of decisions are not made under the common law.
In civil court, judges can render their decisions under the common law, and court decisions establish the rules. However, that is not the case in criminal law. In our society, we have determined what should come under criminal law. We have determined what actions would be seen as crimes and be punished.
Is it a step backwards to give judges a great deal of discretion to enable them to interpret cases? Clause 20 will enable judges to have witnesses come before them, to interpret cases and render a decision.
What will this lead to? In reality, their rulings will be limited. The proceedings will be limited, and judges will have to comply with this provision, without, however, having all the discretion common law grants them.
This is what I think, although I am not a legal expert.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Krongold, I want to give you a chance to talk a little further about your concerns with respect to clause 17, but I think we can tie it to the discussion we've just had from the questions by Mr. Goguen, who referred to section 20 within the charter, which is clause 2 of the bill. That's an interpretation section that I suppose might be section 1 if it were in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It may be the saving provision.
I want to understand the difficulty you expressed with respect to clause 17, that someone can be allowed to testify anonymously, apparently, so that the identity of the witness will not be disclosed—and your concern, I can appreciate, would be not be disclosed to whom. If that list of the people to whom the identity is not to be disclosed includes the accused, then we have a constitutional problem. Do I have it right?