Justice Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further on G-1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on amendment NDP-5.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

If I could get down on my knees—something I've never done in my life—I would now. If there is one amendment that is important, it is this one. If we truly want to be able to study what we are implementing, we need to adopt it. All the victims groups that we met with, including groups of legal experts and others, have told us that this is a good first step, but that something else will have to be done.

Representatives from two provinces appeared to tell us that this will have a huge impact on the administration of justice. I am convinced that if we had spoken to representatives from the other eight provinces, they would have said the same thing.

This is a reasonable amendment that would add this clause 30, which will go like this:

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an annual report for the previous year on the operation of this Act that contains the following information: (a) the number of restitution orders made under section 16; (b) the number of requests for information made under sections 7 and 8; and (c) the number of complaints filed under sections 25 and 26.

The purpose of this amendment is not so that Canada's Parliament can retain control, but rather it is to see how the bill is applied concretely on the ground. This bill still has some practical aspects. It would be reasonable to proceed in this way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Goguen.

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

Basically, regarding victims of crime, there's a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. This amendment would create an obligation on the federal government to report on requests and complaints made to provincial and territorial agencies.

The federal government does not have control over that sphere of activity, and therefore, we cannot support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I understand that this can be difficult. There are other cases. For example, this was done in the case of the official language of accused individuals. We can get proceedings in French. We can get the information. It isn't an obligation of result, but an obligation to inform Parliament of what is going on and what might have happened. If we don't get a response, we won't go after the government. We can write that a given province did not respond, but at least we could see what is going on. We can't just draft legislation, throw it at the provinces, and tell them to handle it, then not care about what happens. We need to be a little more responsible and reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Péclet.

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

I would just like to add to my colleague's comments.

In the “Remedies” section on page 7 of the bill, there is a duplication of mechanisms. The following has been proposed:

25.(1) Every victim who is of the opinion that any of their rights under this Act have been infringed or denied by a federal department, agency or body has the right to file a complaint in accordance with its complaints mechanism.

It then states:

25.(2) Every victim who has exhausted their recourse under the complaints mechanism and who is not satisfied with the response of the federal department, agency or body may file a complaint with any authority that has jurisdiction to review complaints in relation to that department, agency or body.

So there are two processes here. One was created for the federal departments and agencies that have an obligation to apply this bill, but there is also a provincial side.

The parliamentary secretary is saying that we do not have to tell the provinces how to apply this bill, but it remains that a large part of this application will fall to the federal departments. So we could at least look at how the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will apply at the federal level. That is part of our role, as Canadian parliamentarians.

We could ask the minister to review his position. It is true that we cannot tell the provinces what to do, but it is our responsibility to consider what will happen in the federal departments and institutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I just want to chime in on this. I'm having some trouble understanding the logic on the government side where we have a bill here that imposes some pretty serious obligations on the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of justice. Admittedly, it does that.

We have talked about whether or not that's going to be adequately funded. That's been a topic that's come up a lot.

There seems to be no problem imposing obligations on the administration of justice within the provinces, but when it comes to measuring it, they don't want to go there. It seems to me to be completely inconsistent. You can't manage it if you don't measure it.

To say that this proposal would be difficult to enforce, I fundamentally disagree. If the provinces are going to carry out the obligations that are imposed upon them, they're going to have to receive some funding from the feds and that funding can be tied to cooperation with a reporting mechanism. It's pretty simple and workable.

I find it troubling how willing the government is to impose obligations on other levels of government, but does not require some accountability.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That is the end of the amendments on clause 2.

Shall clause 2 as amended carry?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

There is a new clause being proposed and we're calling it clause 2.1. It's being proposed through amendment NDP-6.

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

In terms of parliamentary review, what we are suggesting is to do something similar to what we have recently done with the language of the accused in this committee. Therefore, I move the following:

PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW 2.1 Two years after section 2 comes into force, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights enacted by that section.

It is a basic amendment that allows us to follow up on this bill in order to make adjustments. As victims and the victims' ombudsman have told us, this is a first step. It remains to be seen how it will be applied on the ground. One of the witnesses told us that the provinces are responsible for enforcing 95% of the bill. Under those circumstances, we will need to at least undertake a study to fully consider the rights of victims, not just to oversee the process.

The government could propose a five- or seven-year period, the way it did with prostitution. I don't think it has to be done as quickly as possible. I am aware that the bill needs time to evolve. I think two years would be an adequate timeframe to either address shortcomings or to realize that the work is good and everyone is very happy with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

In my view, this review is a no-brainer, considering the important obligations that it will entail. In addition, a change in culture will be needed in some provinces. I am not saying that it will be the case everywhere. In fact, witnesses have shown us that some provinces were taking very seriously their role of informing and supporting victims along the way. Some provinces are already significantly ahead with their victim assistance programs. Canadian victims deserve the Parliament of Canada to review this new bill to ensure improved follow-up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, Monsieur Goguen.

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

Two years go by quickly. I therefore move a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Do you want to propose an amendment?

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

Yes, I'd like to propose a subamendment. Instead of saying “Two years after section 2 comes into force”, I'd say, “Five years after section 2 comes into force, a committee” take out “of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses is to be designated” and insert “a committee of Parliament is to be designated...”.

In French, we would say five years of course and we would take out the words “du Sénat ou des deux chambres” from the third line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

A subamendment has been moved to proposed clause 2.1 which makes it from two years to five years, if I'm reading this right, and that it is a committee of Parliament. So it could be of either House or both Houses.

Are there any questions?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Can we discuss the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Yes, the floor is open on the subamendment.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Two years may be a short time, but five years is a long time. If there are any weaknesses and changes need to be made, I think five years is a long time, especially if we keep the victims in mind. Throughout the debates, the government has talked about how seriously it is taking all this. However, if we recognize that the objective has not been achieved, I think it would be in our interest to make adjustments as soon as possible.

I think five years is a really long time. When we know that, for many people, a week in politics can be a lifetime, imagine what a five-year wait could feel like. If the government had said three years, I would have found that a little more appropriate. I would have thought that its intent was really to follow up on the legislation. However, in five years, there could be three different governments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further to the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

All right.

Clauses 3 through 13 have no amendments, so I would like to group them.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

(Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 14)

We're on amendment G-2. If G-2 carries, G-3 and G-4 carry as well. We don't need to debate them. They are assumed passed also.

Monsieur Goguen, on amendment G-2.

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

Currently, only the trial judge can make orders enabling witnesses to testify in the presence of a support person. The proposed amendment would enable another judge of the same court to make such an order where the trial judge has not yet been determined. This amendment would also help provide victims greater certainty by enabling such orders to be made early in the trial process. It would also improve the efficiency because it would mean that a trial time is not being used to consider such applications, although the trial judge will continue to have authority to review such orders throughout the proceeding. T

his amendment has the support of a number of the provinces that have raised the issue with senior federal justice officials and urged the government to consider such a reform.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're on clause 15 and because of what just passed, we don't need to deal with G-3.

We're on LIB-6. The floor is yours, Mr. Casey.