Justice Committee on Nov. 18th, 2014

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I want to thank all of you.

My first question is about the territoriality of the bill.

Ms. Basnicki, you referred to this earlier. I was really sorry to hear that you had to wage such a battle to have your rights recognized. It says here that this applies only to investigations and prosecutions for offences committed in Canada. I would like to summarize your viewpoint on the bill's territoriality. If I understand correctly, you are of the opinion that this charter should also cover crimes committed against Canadian men and women outside of Canada.

[Maureen Basnicki]

With the translation I understood the question to be: do I think that Canadians who are victimized outside the borders of our country still should be classified as victims? Absolutely.

Certainly, perpetrators of crimes are still demanding their rights as Canadian citizens when they've been successfully prosecuted for crimes outside the country, and I want to bring balance to this. This is not a new step. It's new for Canadians, perhaps, but other countries do this, many other countries. Most other countries do. It saddens me, and most Canadians who become aware of this. They just assume that when they come back to Canada, especially if they're living in Canada, they will be treated with the same amount of respect and dignity as if the crime weren't committed outside our country. That was not the case for me. I was penalized because my late husband was a Canadian. Even though he resided in Ontario, the act happened in the U.S., and I was penalized in many ways.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Have you met other people who, like you, have been penalized because of a situation like this? Is it often the case?

[Maureen Basnicki]

Yes. The numbers are small. You'll hear that 24 Canadians were killed in 9/11. Most of them lived in the United States, so they came under a different umbrella. There's only a handful of us, and I'm the outspoken one. Most of them are too traumatized. They were just shocked that they didn't come under this. Certainly, if you get sick, you can come back to the country and say, “I got sick through no fault of my own. Here's my OHIP card. I'm entitled to certain services.” But it's a different thing if you're a victim of crime outside the country, and you cannot get insurance.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much for that answer, and thank you very much for sharing your story. I think it's going to help us amend the law to make it a little better.

Mr. Waller, your comments were very interesting. If I'm not mistaken, one of your recommendations was that the federal bureau of the ombudsman be in charge of the complaints mechanism. Or was that just a proposal?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

This legislation lacks any specificity as to what the complaint procedures will be. We already have some complaint procedures within the RCMP, so I assume those would be adapted to this. I think the federal ombudsman office is an obvious place to concentrate issues of complaints against federal parties. I think there's a real need to help the federal ombudsman with resources to ensure that we learn from what is working and not working in this legislation, so that it can be improved for the future.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Do you foresee a problem because there's a law but there's no complaint mechanism?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

Absolutely. The most fundamental thing if you want rights is to set up the way they're going to be enforced, and this is a major lack in this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's your time, I'm sorry.

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Wilks from the Conservative Party. You also have only five minutes.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'll be quick.

Thank you very much for your testimony today. Ms. Rosenfeldt, I was with the RCMP during that unfortunate time with your son, and I knew the lead investigator, Fred Maile. I don't know if you've met him.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Yes, I have.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm curious about the perspective you mentioned with regard to jurisdiction being a key aspect. Certainly, in the case of that investigation there were multiple jurisdictions, and that was part of the problem. I wonder if you have any suggestions with regard to jurisdiction and how information can be provided to victims when there are multiple layers of jurisdiction.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

There are multiple layers of jurisdiction as well as.... There's RCMP in some jurisdictions. There's municipal police in some jurisdictions, and in our particular set of circumstances, that is what happened.

Throughout the years—it's been a long time—I've always been under the assumption that there is a concerted effort between police departments, those being RCMP and municipal and/or city police, to try their best to share information. I believe they've used the Olson situation as a prime example for what could happen. When I say the RCMP came and gathered us together and did an apology, I can't quite remember what the actual circumstances were, because we were dealing with city police and municipal police as well. It was a huge boggle at the time.

My understanding is that it has gotten better. Do I have an answer for that or how it could be changed? I don't. That's a police matter.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you for that.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

It's as difficult as the victim's situation. It really is. It takes the effort. It takes advocating, and it takes certain people who can do the advocating. It's the same with police; some police are stronger than others.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Gilhooly, when I read through clause 21, or proposed section 606, it talks about notifying the victim on a plea bargain. I wonder if it's potentially possible to change two words that would make it better for the victims. That is if the accused is charged with an offence and the accused and the prosecutor have entered into an agreement referred to in proposed subsection (4.1) right now it reads:

the court shall, after accepting the plea of guilty, inquire of the prosecutor whether any of the victims had advised the prosecutor of their desire to be informed if such an agreement

I wonder if you just changed the words from “after” to “prior to”....

In (4.4) there's a clause that says:

Neither the failure of the court to inquire of the prosecutor, nor the failure of the prosecutor to take reasonable steps to inform the victims of the agreement, affects the validity of the plea.

Could you speak to that for a minute or two?

[Gregory Gilhooly]

I think that as a victim what we're looking for is to be involved in the process and to have a sense as to what's going on, and to have been a part of the process. Nobody wants to create a rubric of rights that gets in the way of effective negotiation of a plea deal with the accused or whatever, so long as we've been reasonably involved throughout the process. I'm now speaking on behalf of all victims I guess, but in my case I would have been comfortable with having been apprised that there were discussions going on through the process. This would mean: here's what could happen on a go-forward basis; this was within the realm of possibility; what are your thoughts on this; here's where we're going potentially, and then have that happen. I'm not so fussed on there being a trigger event for that right of notification to kick in.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Waller, you mentioned something with regard to an amendment to the RCMP Act. My only concern on that would be that you're only going to deal with the RCMP and not with any other jurisdiction whether it be provincial and their police. I wonder if you have a thought on that.

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

I'm saying it's in the federal area so it's something that you can do as a committee. As you probably know, Bob Lunney in the late seventies had a provision like this in Edmonton. He doubled the number of people who applied for compensation across the whole of Alberta. The RCMP are the provincial police in Surrey, in Red Deer, etc. If you could just get that happening, I think this would be fabulous publicity for the RCMP to show that they really care about victims, and so much so that they're actually going to give them information. You already have some services in some of these places that are doing something similar, but to make it across the board I think would be fabulous publicity.

[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]

Mr. Chair, thank you for your militantly equitable chairing today.

Thank you to all of the witnesses. Honestly what you bring to the table today is much appreciated. We need to be very cognizant of what you're saying.

My question is for Ms. Mallet and perhaps also for Ms. Albert.

You said you fear that the enforcement of the charter might be complex. I found that comment interesting. You urge the provinces to take that into account. Do you have any other comments to make on that?

As such, the bill of rights is a federal matter, but the administration of justice is a provincial one. People fear, of course, that the provinces may not be as motivated as we would like.

In your opinion, how could we urge the provinces to take the bill of rights seriously?

[Dolores Mallet]

In my opinion, they are going to need support and funds in order to be able to proceed with this. What we are talking about here is a new mentality. They are going to have to include new elements in their processes. We read that the federal government was going to allocate funds to the provinces, but I think we are going to have to force their hand a bit if they are to follow suit.

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

I think the provinces always have a slight reservation when it comes to funds the federal level allocates to them.

[Dolores Mallet]

Yes, but I must say that my perspective on these matters is not very political.

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

That is fine.

You also referred to the restitution orders. As we know, judges issue those orders, but in many cases the persons who would benefit from them have to have them ratified, that is to say they have to submit them to the court individually.

Do you see that as an obstacle?