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.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It is redundant to add the words “on request”. As I was saying, a right either does or doesn't exist. In other words, a right on request does not legally exist. So that wording is redundant.
I would just like to ask the officials who are here whether removing the words “on request” would have an actual impact. For instance, the parliamentary secretary said that this approach would cause delays.
What repercussions would the removal of those words have on the enforcement of the legislation?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
That is a question for the officials.
Ms. Arnott, your light is on so you have the floor.
3:55 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice
Thank you.
As you say, the right would be available on request. So the right would clearly consist in providing that information. The information would not be provided on the victim's request, but it would be an obligation of the Crown, police officers and other stakeholders to provide the information, whether the victim desires it or not.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have the Privacy Commissioner's letter on hand, but I remember that he had some concerns in this regard. I would like to give Ms. Boivin an opportunity to respond to the commissioner's comments.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Madam Boivin, the floor is yours. You don't have to answer questions.
November 25th, 2014 / 3:55 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I would like him to tell me what part of the letter he is talking about.
What was the commissioner saying?
Let him find it. He's the one criticizing it.
I'll try to answer Mr. Casey when I find something that relates to his question maybe, but I have a question for Ms. Arnott.
Am I right to think that the current wording of that provision, namely, “Every victim has the right, on request, to information...”, means that, legally, if the victim does not request information, they will not obtain it? The provision says that a victim has the right to obtain information, and I understand that this means the burden is on the investigator or the crown prosecutor, instead of on the victim. This has to do with the burden.
We understand each other. Finally, the government prefers to place the burden on the victim, rather than on the crown prosecutor or the investigator in charge of the case, who would have to share the information.
I think what Mr. Casey meant to say is that certain types of information in an investigation file, such as someone's address or similar information, cannot be provided to a victim.
I'm not sure what his point was regarding the letter. However, I must say that the words, “has the right...to information”, “the status and outcome of the investigation into the offence”, and “the location of proceedings in relation to the offence, when they will take place” are fairly clear. There is no potentially damaging information there. They do not have to provide any privileged information on the status and outcome of the investigation into the offence.
In any case, I think that clause 20 sets out the type of information that can be provided without jeopardizing the investigation. So victims have a right, but that right is limited by other provisions.
Clause 7 should specify who has the burden to provide information. That is what my amendment is about. Is the information provided because the victim makes a request or because the crown prosecutor or investigator has to provide it?
4 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice
I completely agree with this being a matter of the burden. I think that the information from the investigation is covered in another amendment we will discuss later.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I now have the letter. At the top of page two in his letter of November 12 to the chair of the committee, the Privacy Commissioner said:
Bill C-32 further provides that “every victim has the right, on request, to information about …the services and programs available to them as a victim, including restorative justice programs.” I would draw the Committee’s attention to the phrase “on request” which provides me with some reassurance that victims will only be provided with information or contacted by victims services organizations (VSOs) in accordance with their wishes.
That's what I was asking about.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Yes, I would.
I understand that, but that was not the case in proposed section 7. Proposed section 7 is not the fact that they would distribute the information to
victims services organizations.
The commissioner was rightfully worried about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police potentially sharing information on the victim.
Clause 7 stipulates that it is up to the victim to request information, which will not be provided to anyone but them.
I understand my colleague's concern, but I don't think this has to do with clause 7. We are all very touchy when it comes to information sharing. We would not want any information on victims to be shared with various organizations without their consent.
That's not what is at issue in clause 7, which rather talks about the status and outcome of the investigation, and the time and location of the proceedings in relation to the investigation. This is a matter of knowing who will have the burden to provide information. Will the information be provided because the victim requests it or because they have a right to obtain it? I think victims should have a statutory right to that information.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
As a reminder, it is not cross-debate at this point. We're dealing with clause-by-clause consideration.
(Amendment negatived See [Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on amendment LIB-2. I need to let the committee know that if LIB-2 is moved, which I'm assuming it will be, PV-6 will then be inadmissible because it is absolutely identical.
Mr. Casey, I'm assuming you're moving LIB-2.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment essentially adopts the recommendation provided to this committee by the Canadian Bar Association. The concern of the Canadian Bar Association was to explicitly indicate that investigative materials were not to be included in what victims had a right to, and to remove any lack of clarity about that exclusion.
The concern, of course, is potential contamination of a witness' testimony if there was disclosure of investigative materials, intruding on third party rights, or hampering the use of effective informants. Mr. Wilks would understand this very well.
Failure to adopt this provision could alienate victims who feel disappointed because absent this they may well feel that they have the right to this type of information, which could not lawfully be delivered.
It's to provide clarity around that, and it's directly in keeping with what was recommended to us by the Canadian Bar Association.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I tend to agree with this amendment proposal, even though I find that clause 20 tempers matters by stating the following:
20. This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances, and in a manner that is not likely to (a)... (i) by causing interference...compromising or hindering the investigation of any offence...
This may be a smokescreen, but there's no harm in being extra careful. So it's not a bad idea to specify that again. This should not extend to information from investigation files that are still active.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
The proposed section as it's currently framed basically permits the victims to receive the information about the status of an investigation or about its outcome on request. Neither the status nor the outcome include what this motion seeks to exclude, so we'd be voting against this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
That means PV-6 has been removed.
We're moving to amendment NDP-3.
Madam Boivin.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Dear God, this is like talking into a void!
Clause 8 reads as follows:
8. Every victim has the right, on request, to information about (a) reviews under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act...; (b) hearings held for the purpose of making dispositions, as defined in subsection 672.1(1)...
I repeat that the goal of my amendment is to release victims from the burden of having to request information. The statement of principle is currently limited to clauses 6, 7 and 8. In terms of information, this is the very essence of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
The further we go in clauses 6, 7 and 8, the more we realize that this right is not very binding for anyone. I hope that victims will know that they have this right, although I don't know how exactly they will find out. They better know about it, as they will not have this right unless they ask for it.
My amendment simply aims to remove the words “on request”, so as to release victims from this burden, as they already have to deal with the stress caused by a trial and their financial and psychological issues.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on amendment PV-7.
Madam May.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Amendment PV-7 is looking at every stage in the criminal process. We know that the Canadian victims bill of rights is attempting to ensure that victims feel secure and have an enhanced sense of safety and security throughout the process. They may be encountering the person who victimized them.
The addition in PV-7 that I've made is at page 4, line 21 and basically inserts the words “including parole hearings”.
This was a recommendation directly from the testimony of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Next we have LIB-3.
Mr. Casey, the floor is yours, assuming you're moving it.