Evidence of meeting #54 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Ms. May was talking about paragraph (j), but she means (f) I guess.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I see no issues with that paragraph, which reads as follows:
(f) any other individual who a court has, on application by that individual, determined to be an appropriate individual to exercise the victim's rights on behalf of the victim.
That may be why I did not think it would be necessary to change paragraph (b). Paragraph (f) seems to cover any other circumstances not covered in clause 3. I think this amendment is very good and logical.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
This amendment would cause us to have further judicial resources, and would cause further delays. It introduces a court-based appointment process and we feel that's not necessary. We'll be voting against it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Everyone can read. This is probably the simplest amendment in terms of wording. The amendment simply aims to remove the words “on request” from clause 6. You can see that we did the same thing for clauses 7 and 8.
We are proposing this amendment in response to what victims groups have told us. One of the criticisms against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it contains a number of grey areas. It contains a number of clauses that make us wonder whether they would be applicable in practice and how.
Once again, this is a basic principle. I think these are probably the most important provisions of the bill, as they set out victims' rights. Victims have certain rights, but they have access to them only on request. However, I feel that we should not have to ask for our rights.
There are enough other provisions that provide guidance on how things should or should not be done. With my Conservative friends reaffirming that basic principle, I would say the following to them:
put your money where your mouth is.
These are probably the key provisions of his bill. Victims should have that right without any limitations.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Individuals should have the right as to whether they want the information. We respect their privacy by giving them choices and making this mandatory would overburden the provincial and territorial criminal justice systems and that is certainly not needed. We will be voting against it.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I find with all due respect that is an easy cop-out because the fact that we award them the right doesn't mean they will necessarily exercise it. It is a fundamental right or a quasi-judicial right that the government seems so strong to state on every tribune.... The argument of saying their privacy.... If they don't want to exercise it, they won't. To tell them that they have this right.... What the government is saying is that you won't get the right if you don't ask for it. I find this utterly sad and maybe just re-think. It's nothing nasty. It doesn't give them more rights. It just states a fact.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment PV-3, Madam May.
3:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I must say I wish I could have voted, because Madam Boivin's motion was so important. It's terribly sad that people don't really have the right.
But moving on to my third amendment, this is an attempt to expand on request the kinds of information that the victim would be informed, in terms of the specificity of what's available to them.
Currently under proposed section 6 under paragraph (b), the victim “has the right, on request, to information...about services and programs available to them as a victim,” but the only specific mention is of a restorative program. My amendment would expand that to include “relevant restorative justice, social services, family services and mental health programs as recommended by a needs assessment performed by an appropriate professional”.
That would allow the information rights of the victim to be based also on advice from appropriate professionals to tailor the information and the needs of that victim and give them greater information about existing services.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I like this amendment. A victims bill of rights allows victims to participate in the justice system. We know that many groups view the justice system in a very negative light. Over the course of testimony by various victims groups that have appeared before us, we felt that they were happy to feel somewhat important.
This bill is a solid guide. It will be useful for the provinces enforcing it and criminal justice stakeholders, who will be able to know what kind of information they have to provide.
It will be difficult to apply this bill if only empty rhetoric is used. We will have to flesh out this bill from the beginning in two or three years because we have failed to do so throughout this debate.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, Ms. Boivin.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment PV-4, Madam May.
3:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, thank you for the floor again.
I'll give you an overview of amendments PV-4 and PV-5, although I'll come back to PV-5.
Both of these deal with trying to inject into this legislation something that had been part of the initial recommendations, even before this bill was first drafted, from the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and that is to provide in Canada the equivalent of what's available in California. The California Victims' Bill of Rights of 2008 created something which I think you're all familiar with, Marsy's Law, and the card that's presented.
The Marsy's card gives a victim a very clear and concise statement of what kind of rights they'll receive under the act. As I said, this goes back to recommendations that go back to June 2013 as well in the Department of Justice submission from the ombudsman. It would read very simply. This would create a subsection 6.1 following from the sections we've just reviewed that:
Every victim has the right to receive, free of charge, a written statement summarizing all of their rights under this Act.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment PV-5 I think is similar to what you just said, Madam, but the floor is yours.
3:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
I'm sorry we're not able to get into a dialogue about why the ombudsman's recommendations in this area have been rejected by the committee. Again, this is a specific attempt to further delineate in a written form Marsy's card type of information so that victims are aware of their rights.
It would inject after line 36 on page 3, the following:
6.1(I) Every victim has the right to receive, free of charge, a written statement summarizing all of their rights under this Act.
There's a proposed subsection (2) this time which says:
(2) Every law enforcement agency investigating an offence and every prosecutor involved in the prosecution of an offence must, at the time of initial contact with a victim, during the follow-up investigation or as soon as is considered appropriate by the investigating officers or the prosecutor, as the case may be, provide or make readily available to the victim, free of charge, a written statement summarizing all of the victim's rights under this Act.
This also goes to Madam Boivin's point in trying to amend the notion of request or right. This way at least, if this amendment can possibly be accepted and I would urge my friends across the way to consider it, it's straightforward, and merely makes sure that every victim...and I know it's the rights of victims that the Conservative administration, in this case, wants to protect. The whole point of this bill and the information about it is to protect victims' rights. If they don't know of those rights, they can't request them and they can't make use of them.
In this fashion, very quickly and easily and without additional burden to anyone, a victim could be made aware of all of their rights in a simple piece of information. If California can do it, Canada can do it.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
This would force every investigating officer or prosecutor to provide a sheet with the rights outlined, even though the person or the victim didn't want them, so we don't feel it is necessary. We'll be voting against it.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on to NDP-2 under clause 2.
Madam Boivin.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I feel that the same government logic will be followed. I am starting to understand the bill a bit better. The fact is that victims have rights, but they do not know exactly what those rights are. They will not be provided with any sort of a written list. We can already see what types of problems will arise.
All victims have the right to obtain certain information. I am not the one calling for this. This is something victims have told when they testified. By telling them that they have to request the information, the government is imposing a burden on those individuals. It is argued that this approach would infringe on victims' right to privacy or their right to choose to make this request or not. The right to obtain information about the status and outcome of the investigation into the offence is not a problem. Victims may consult the crown prosecutor—or the investigator, depending on the procedure used in the region in question—and decide they don't need to obtain the information.
We have some lawyers around this table.
Regardless of your area of practice, the client is no longer the number one priority. Cases in which victims are informed of their rights and know what is happening are much easier to navigate.
Rights are supposedly being granted, but those rights are available only on request. Once again, I think the government should be consistent. It says it wants to refocus victims' rights and provide victims with a bill or rights, but those individuals should not have to ask for those rights. I don't think that makes any sense.