Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

(Clauses 36 to 42 inclusive agreed to)

We have a new clause, clause 42.1, and it's amendment G-10.

I will speak slowly until somebody who would like to speak to it puts up their hand.

Monsieur Goguen.

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

Yes, I'd like to speak to this.

This amendment proposes to add a new transitional provision to specify that the amendment proposed to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code would only apply to offences committed on or after coming into force of the bill. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code is amended by Bill C-32 to require that sanctions be consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community. A similar transition clause is already proposed for section 718, but was inadvertently omitted in section 718.2.

It's a housekeeping amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's a housekeeping one.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to)

(On clause 45)

We have two amendments on clause 45, and they're both from the independent, Elizabeth May of the Green Party. Are there any comments on PV-22?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Are there comments on PV-23?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I would have had questions but—

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 45 agreed to)

(On clause 46)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have three amendments, PV-24, PV-25, and PV-26.

Are there comments on PV-24?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Are there comments on PV-25?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Are there comments on PV-26?

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, I think it makes sense. That's all I'm going to say.

I think it's clearer because it's not only the unescorted temporary absence, it could be the escorted temporary absence also, so I thought it was a sound amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 46 agreed to)

(Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to)

(On clause 49)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

On clause 49, we have amendments PV-27 and PV-28.

(Amendments negatived)

(Clause 49 agreed to)

I don't have any amendments for clauses 50 to 57. May I move them all at once?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

(Clauses 50 to 57 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 58)

We're on to clause 58, and that has an amendment, G-11.

Mr. Goguen, I'm assuming you want to speak to it.

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

Yes. This is a technical amendment. It's a modification to make a correction in the clause. As you will recall, the wrong version of private member's Bill C-479, , an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders was transmitted to the Senate earlier in the session due to an administrative error, and Bill C-479 has since been updated. The proposed amendment would ensure that this clause makes the correct reference to proposed paragraph 142(1)(c) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that is currently reflected in Bill C-479.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 58 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 59 agreed to)

(On clause 60—Ninety days after Royal Assent )

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

On clause 60, the last clause of the bill, I believe, we have an amendment from the NDP.

Madam Boivin, it's your seventh amendment. The floor is yours.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I think it's fitting that it's the last amendment.

This is about the bill coming into effect. First of all, I want it to be clear to all that the NDP does not want to hold up anything. In fact, this is directly linked to what we were told by Saskatchewan's justice minister and the attorney general of Alberta during the committee’s work.

It was in the Saskatchewan justice minister’s letter of November 20. For the attorney general of Alberta, it was when he testified here on November 4. One of the witnesses mentioned—and I no longer recall which one—that 90% or 95% of this bill, relating to the Victims Bill of Rights, will have to be enforced by the provinces.

To this day, I am still upset that we received no reply from the provinces, which will be the ones most affected by the Victims Bill of Rights. That said, I feel that, once the bill is passed, we must arrange for them to have the time to come up with mechanisms, formulas, and so on so that everyone can enforce the bill of rights in the same way.

The timeframe could have been longer. In my opinion, six months is quite short. Saskatchewan's justice minister seemed to be saying that it was a minimum. I think that it can be done in six months, if we make it known that it is urgent. Three months is extremely short. But these justice ministers are quite well established. They have thought about the matter. They are also in favour of the bill of rights. It is not as if there was resistance on their part and they wanted to hear nothing about it.

As I said previously, the objective is not to hold up the process. The quicker we establish these principles, the more supported the victims will feel. The system has often supported victims, but they have not necessarily felt that to be the case.

In my opinion, a lot of these measures must be put into effect as quickly as possible. However, I do not think that it is too much to allow 180 days, rather than 90 days, before the bill comes into effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Monsieur Goguen.

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

The provinces and territories have been aware of this coming forth since April 2014, and some of the stakeholders of victims' rights have been working a lifetime to get this through. We feel that 90 days is quite reasonable to give the provinces the chance to put this into place, so we'll be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Anything further?

Ms. Boivin, you have the floor.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I am simply going to reply to that comment and afterwards I will yield the floor to my colleagues.

I know the government has been talking about this for a long time. However, it has not been that long since the bill of rights itself was created. It is often when people see provisions on paper that they realize certain things.

I would like to say, in defence of the provinces, that even if they knew that the government was working on something, they did not know to what extent these responsibilities would land, as we say, “in their court”. If you read the report and the press releases the justice ministers issued following the last federal-provincial-territorial conference—and that was only a few months ago—you will see that the matter of the bill of rights seemed to be on the back burner.

This will not affect my life, but I think the government is going to have some serious problems. The bill of rights looks like it might have a rather difficult beginning. Once it is adopted by the House, it would not be superfluous to tour the provinces or at least to advise them that they have 180 days to get up to speed. It is a bit cavalier, in my opinion—and I say this with all due respect for my colleague across the way—to state that they knew this all along. According to what I read I did not get the impression that the provinces understood the scope of the responsibilities the bill of rights was going to impose on them.

If the government really wants this to be a success, it is going to have to put some basic elements in place, as regards promotion, among other things; this just happens to be one of its favourite areas. It needs to say that the new charter has been adopted, and so on and so forth. In fact, I am sure that is already planned.

You have to think of the fact that crown attorneys and police officers are going to have to proceed differently, throughout the country. The Canadian Parliament does not move fast, and provincial governments do not necessarily move any faster.

I don't know if other colleagues have any comments to make on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madam Péclet, the floors is yours.

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

After having put the question to several witnesses, we saw that there was a lack of clarity regarding the enforcement of the charter. This is true for the provinces, but it is also true at the federal level. For instance, the bill refers to a complaint mechanism, but even at the federal level, that mechanism has not yet been established. Who will have this responsibility? Will it be the ombudsman? Will it be someone else?

If the charter were adopted tomorrow morning, we would still have to give the provinces and federal departments the time to adopt these mechanisms, and as my colleague was saying, provide appropriate training.

I will not talk about resources, but no budget has been allocated to the enforcement of the Victims Bill of Rights. However, several witnesses referred to the vagueness around its enforcement. The work that will need to be done on that is going to require more than three months. The justice ministers, as well as several experts, emphasized this lack of clarity and the fact that it will be necessary to provide training after the bill of rights is adopted.

In light of the problems the provinces are going to be grappling with, I think a six-month time frame would be appropriate. We agree that even if the charter were adopted tomorrow morning, it could not be enforced immediately. In other words, a long process will be needed even within the federal government.

Perhaps the Department of Justice officials could tell us if the complaint mechanism has already been put in place in federal departments. I have my doubts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Would you like to respond to that question?

[Pamela Arnott, Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice]

Yes. I can assure the committee that the federal organizations involved are working with some urgency on preparing the implementation of this bill of rights, including the complaint mechanisms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Is there anything further on amendment NDP-7?

Seeing none, all those—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Whoa. One second. We have time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I didn't say we didn't have time. I didn't see your hand.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It's not a question of time. It's just because of the answer

which you gave to my colleague, Ms. Arnott.

Since only 5% of the enforcement of the bill of rights will be under federal responsibility—unless you want to contradict the witness who represented MADD Canada, if I am not mistaken—and consequently that responsibility will fall to the provinces for the most part, you cannot really predict how long the provinces will need to adapt; nor can you make any assumptions about the time needed to establish the complaint mechanism that will be put into effect. You can only comment on your 5%.

[Pamela Arnott]

Yes, that is true, but I can nevertheless assure the committee that we are working in close cooperation with our provincial and territorial colleagues.

For instance, I chair a working group that includes all of the directors of victims' assistance services. We examined several aspects of the bill, and among other things we have created a special subcommittee on the victims' bill of rights. It includes crown attorneys, people who work in the delivery of services provided by tribunals, victims' assistance services, and the legal aid services from all of the provinces and territories. That subcommittee is discussing matters related to the implementation and enforcement of the act.

This work is being done in cooperation with various stakeholders and has allowed us to suggest some fine-tuning for the bill. We are now working to develop tools to support the provinces and territories.