Evidence of meeting #78 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Ms. May, every member voted against PV-6.
I'm now going to move to PV-7, please. PV-7 is deemed moved.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
4:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
Again, this business of deeming my motions moved is all because the larger parties didn't like the rights that I do have to put these amendments forward if I chose to do so. If you didn't have this motion in place at your committee, I would be able to move all of these amendments in the House in full session, and then we'd be able to have the debate.
The witnesses from My Voice, My Choice have made it very clear why they feel Bill S-12 needs improvements. This is one of those improvements, and I'm hoping this time.... I know it doesn't seem very likely that the amendment will be accepted, but I do urge the committee to consider this as a minor improvement to the overall scheme of Bill S-12, in the interests of the victims, who otherwise find themselves under these publication bans without their knowledge.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Can I just say something, Madam Chair, very quickly? It's for Ms. May's benefit because of her technical problems at the outset of the meeting.
There was consensus around the table, Ms. May, that we all are very supportive and we understand and are grateful to My Voice, My Choice, but the amendments as presented are not ones that everybody can accept. It's not in any way a reflection on them as a group nor on any of the individuals we heard at this committee. I think it's important we get that on the record and understand that before we move on.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
My apologies, Madam Chair.
According to PV‑7, the judge cannot make an order if doing so goes against the wishes of the victim or a witness. Consider a case involving several witnesses or victims, for instance, three rape victims. It's possible that one of them doesn't want the order, but the other two do. In that case, the judge wouldn't be able to make the order. In my eyes, that's a real problem.
We can't adopt PV‑7 in its current form, because it allows just one witness to veto the order despite the wishes of the other witnesses.
I'm sorry, Ms. May. That's not against you.
4:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I understand, my friend.
Madam Chair, is it possible for me to respond to Monsieur Fortin's comments?
4:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
Very briefly, the publication order is a question of the individual's name. Each individual has their own name, so if each individual has to agree that their name be listed or not listed, that is their right, and it doesn't mean that no one can be listed. A publication ban could apply to one but not the other, but in each case the victim or witness would have to agree that they would like to have the publication ban apply to them or not. It's a question of their personal name and whether their name is on the order.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. May, it's the same problem I laid out earlier, the language used to describe the ban. This refers to the victim being the subject of the order. If it referred instead to the victim's identity, indicating that the publication of the person's name can't be prohibited, that would be acceptable. This, however, concerns prohibiting a publication ban if it goes against the wishes of a witness. I repeat, this cannot apply when a number of victims or witnesses are involved.
The language would need to be more specific. I agree with you that it's necessary to protect the identity of a person who doesn't wish to have their name disclosed, but it's also important to respect the wishes of someone who does want to have their name disclosed.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you everyone.
I'm going to call the vote.
Take a recorded vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
PV-7 is defeated.
I will now move to PV-8. If PV-8 is adopted, PV-9, NDP-1, G-2, G-3 and G-3.1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Yes, I will. It's very technical, very procedural, very legal. Here we go.
We're now dealing with PV-8, and it is deemed moved.
If PV-8 is adopted, then PV-9, NDP-1, G-2, G-3 and G-3.1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. I'm going to read where the law is. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 769, “Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.”
We are now going to speak to PV-8.
I note, Ms. May, you have your hand up. As the mover, you can speak. Then, Monsieur Fortin, you can follow her.
October 19th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Technically I'm not the mover because of the strangeness of this procedure with which I am being forced to comply, since otherwise I lose my other rights. I'm not the mover; it's “deemed moved”. Yes, it's my amendment, but it is a very strange process, Madam Chair, I agree.
This amendment is attempting to deal with, again, ensuring that people who are witnesses or victims are given access to exercise their own rights under this section. This clarifies the application process to vary or revoke a publication ban. It's under section 486.5, which is on the discretionary publication bans.
The two categories are in the first part of my amendment. If a witness under the age of 18 or a victim who's subject to an order made under section 486.4 asks the prosecutor to have the ban varied or revoked, the prosecutor shall, as soon as feasible, make the application to vary or revoke that order on their behalf. If the court, for any reason, is unable to act, another court can vary or revoke the publication order.
The point here is to make sure that when a victim or witness who is the subject of a publication ban tries to have it removed, wants it varied or wants it revoked, there is a requirement that the prosecutor act on their behalf quickly, and that if they're not for any reason able to get to that court, another court shall hold the hearing as quickly as possible and determine whether the publication ban should remain in place; or, again—this is at the request of a witness under 18 or a victim subject of the order—that they have access to justice in getting the publication ban varied or revoked.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a problem with PV‑8 for three reasons.
First, proposed subsection 486.41(4) is overly restrictive. It says “the court shall consider” the factors listed. The court already considers a certain number of factors when issuing a publication ban. I think the same factors should be considered when the ban is being varied or revoked. With all due respect, limiting the factors that the court can consider paves the way for decisions that make no sense.
The second problem with PV‑8 has to do with proposed subsection 486.41(5), which reads as follows: “The applicant is not required to provide notice of the application to vary or revoke the order to the accused.” How, then, will the court go about holding the accused responsible for violating the order or the varied order? The accused shouldn't have a say in whether an order is necessary or not, but the accused should be notified of publication bans, so that they can be held responsible for violating a ban where applicable.
Third and finally, PV‑8 would replace a number of provisions in Bill S‑12, including limitation provisions, those stipulating when a publication ban would not apply. Those provisions, which appear under the headings “Limitation” and “Limitation — victim or witness”, are needed, however.
With all due respect to Ms. May, I honestly think PV‑8 would be much more detrimental than it would help victims.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Ms. May, the rules are not clear. I'm sure you probably know them better than we do here. I see you have your hand up again.
I'm going to have to use discretion, depending on the time we have available and the number of clauses.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In 30 seconds on PV-8, this amendment applies only to when a witness or a victim who is subject to an existing publication ban order seeks to have it changed. Of course their rights are protected, because they are in the driver's seat. This amendment gives them further opportunity to ask the court to vary or revoke the order.
Of course I hear what you're saying, Mr. Fortin, which is that there already are considerations the court will take into account, but this is looking at the privacy interests of the victim, the freedom of expression for a victim or a witness—