Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Goguen, do you have anything?

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

Yes, one thing.

There's been a compelling case made for public transit workers. There have been a number of assaults and we're looking at the issue of whether it would cover Uber drivers or rickshaw drivers and all that. Section 718 of the Criminal Code, which adds aggravating factors, is not exhaustive. I don't know if you agree with me, but surely if a rickshaw driver was assaulted, it wouldn't stop a judge from taking into consideration that this person was transporting somebody in a public service and there was perhaps an additional danger to the public if he ran off the road.

[Matthew Taylor]

Absolutely, the judge will always have the ability to consider whatever circumstances he deems appropriate as aggravating or mitigating, given the particular facts of the case.

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

That's fine, that's all I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further for Mr. Taylor?

I'm sure he was prepared for all these questions.

That's great. Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the actual clause-by-clause consideration. There's the title and only one clause, even though there are two sections.

Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Shall the chair report the bill back to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll do that tomorrow.

Thank you very much. That bill has now carried. It's going back to the House and will have its third reading when the House leaders decide to call it back to the House.

We'll now suspend for two or three minutes while we switch over to our next meeting.

So colleagues will know, Ms. May is not showing up for the second hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting back to order, pursuant to order of reference of Friday June 20, 2014, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and amend certain acts.

As you know, ladies and gentlemen, we were doing clause-by-clause consideration. We got to clause 30 before we finished, I think.

While we wait for our colleagues to reappear, even though Ms. May is not here, she has the majority of the amendments that are left, in fact, not quite all of them, but almost all of them. They are still deemed moved, so we still have to vote on them. If somebody on the committee wants them, you can still vote for them.

The question was asked of me with regard to the addition of privacy, which was done in clause 2. There was discussion about the French wording, was there not?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are we comfortable with the wording that was provided? Very good.

We're now on clauses 31 to 34.

(Clauses 31 to 34 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 35)

We have LIB-17. If LIB-17 is moved, PV-20 is out of order.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, this amendment arises out of a concern that victim impact statements could now include opinions on sentence. This amendment would remove the possibility that opinions could be included in victim impact statements.

It is consistent with the concerns expressed by the Canadian Bar Association in their recommendation six. Rest assured there would still be an opportunity for victims to have input into the sentence, but this would be in the manner that they do now, and that's by providing relevant information in a pre-sentence report.

While opinions, in our view and in the view of the Canadian Bar Association, do not belong in the victim impact statement, a victim still would not be completely precluded from having input under the procedures that presently exist.

The difficulty with allowing a victim impact statement to include an opinion is that it runs contrary to the legitimate objectives of sentencing, which rely on a careful analysis of factors, including proportionality, aggravating and mitigating factors.

That's the amendment and the rationale behind it. As I indicated, it is consistent with the testimony that we heard from the Canadian Bar Association.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Goguen.

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

This amendment shouldn't be supported because it's contrary to the complete intent of the bill. The objective of the bill is to permit victims to express their opinions and for their opinions to be taken into consideration. Of course, the courts have always exercised their inherent jurisdiction to accept the views of victims on sentencing where it's deemed appropriate, and this is particularly used in sentencing circles.

We will be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Maybe to add to those lines, I still think that for a lot of victims, if the court would know what they think on the issue of sentencing...because who is a lawyer around the table who didn't have a client? I did labour law for 30 years, and sometimes somebody would say they've been wrongfully dismissed. I would always ask, and I taught this to students too, “What do you want? What are you looking for?” They would say to me, “Well, I think it's worth $1.6 million.” I would use my time to explain so that they would not be too disappointed when they got $12,000.

I think that in criminal law it is much the same. For some victims there's no sentence that will ever cover the infraction that was done against them. It's with permission, except with the court's approval. Sometimes there are cases, and some judges are really in tune with it and they could take that time to maybe just address the expectations a bit. I think it would help tremendously.

When we studied the report on the perception of justice in Canada and there were informed citizens versus non-informed citizens about the same cases, it's incredible how the view of the justice system changes. I do believe that in some cases...and I will leave it to the court. That's why I like the fact that

the wording is: “sauf avec la permission du tribunal”.

Technically the logic is that they won't, but they will with permission if they feel that the victim really wants it.

The argument by Mr. Casey, and I respect that argument, is the pre-sentencing report. The problem is that for those of us who did criminal law, the victim was not necessarily always interviewed by the probation officer who did the pre-sentencing report. Sometimes, typically, it was just on the accused, so we would never know what the victim thought.

There is a possibility for the court to decide to hear it if it wants. As I said, when the judge prononcera la sentence, they will probably address that position. That's my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment PV-20 has been removed. Now we're at amendment LIB-18. Of course, if LIB-18 is moved, PV-21 is removed.

The floor is yours, Mr. Casey, on amendment LIB-18.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

LIB-18 proposes the exact same change to the provisions that deal with community impact statements. The comments that I made with respect to victim impact statements apply and I need not repeat them. All of the things I had to say on the last amendment apply to this one with respect to community impact statements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Monsieur Goguen.

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

I have pretty much the same arguments made on the previous one, and the court retains the inherent jurisdiction.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 35 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have no amendments for clauses 36 to 42 inclusive, so may I move them all at once?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.