Evidence of meeting #31 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was child.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Eric Couture  Researcher, Bloc Quebecois Research Bureau, As an Individual
Michel Laroche  President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared
Arlène Gaudreault  President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes
Martin Provencher  As an Individual

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

Time's up.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you.

We will actually begin a second round. We have time for a very short second round of five minutes each.

We'll begin with Madame Folco.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think mine is going to take five minutes. I just want to say that, given the subject....

Actually, I would like to make my comments in French; that way, he will have to make an effort.

Considering the subject matter before us, which is difficult for at least three of the four people who are here with us today, I must say I find it unacceptable that the Conservative member, Mr. Vellacott, took the trouble to present a list of items that have nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. In my opinion, he showed a lack of respect for the witnesses who travelled to be here and have experienced extremely traumatic events. As far as I am concerned, playing political games with people's feelings is totally unacceptable.

I have no questions for you, Ms. Bonsant. But why not use my remaining time to re-read the clause for Mr. Vellacott's benefit? It would do him good.

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

I would be pleased to do so. I will read it more slowly to make it easier for the interpreter.

I am quoting subclause 206.8(2) of the bill you have before you:

(2) However, an employee may not take benefit from these provisions if it may be inferred from the circumstances that the employee—or, in the case of section 206.7, the deceased person, if that person is the spouse, common-law partner or adult child—was probably a party to the criminal offence or probably contributed to the injury by gross negligence or, in the province of Quebec, gross fault.

If you take the time to read the bill, you will see the word “Exclusion” in the French version. In English, it's “Exclusion”—the same thing. If you take the time to read this paragraph and try to understand it, you will see that the young person referred to is the criminal, not the victim.

I believe Mr. Laroche would like to comment.

10:20 a.m.

President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared

Michel Laroche

I'd like to add on to what Ms. Bonsant just said and draw your attention to the concept of gross negligence or fault. I experienced a similar case. A young man involved in a drug transaction was murdered by the person buying the drugs. The young man died. His parents were completely unaware of the fact that he was a drug trafficker, but when his mother asked for compensation for funeral costs, her request was refused. Yet the mother had done nothing wrong. She was unable to receive the $3,000 for funeral costs because her son had been involved in a crime. That is where the notion of gross negligence or gross fault comes in. In such a case, the individual is excluded. There is no problem there.

Our organization is non-partisan. I certainly do not want to play politics with this. However, I have something to say to the Conservative members, although my colleagues may not be in favour of this. You know who founded our association. I am his successor. You have passed several bills and made a number of amendments to the Criminal Code that deal with our judicial system and public safety. We found those provisions to be satisfactory and supported them at the time. I would just like to repeat what I said earlier. My people, the victims, are in favour of these bills. We also note that you have some sympathy for the victims of crime. So, please continue your efforts in that area; don't lose that determination. You have a great opportunity here to continue to meet the needs of victims. Why block a bill like this? I don't understand.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Conservative side for five minutes.

Mr. Vellacott.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

I'll continue the dialogue, with due respect, in terms of getting this bill right, if that's what your intent is, I hope. But if you go into the very section you cited, proposed subsection 206.8(2)—and other members around the table might want to read it—the very critical exclusion that I pointed out and you first stated to me, or maybe inferred from somebody else, is with respect to a minor, a 16-year-old or 17-year-old. If you look at the section that you cited to me, in your own wording here, it says:

if that person is the spouse, common-law partner or adult child

So I hold my ground in saying that you have not excluded that of a minor child, a minor here, somebody who is 16 or 17, or whatever it happens to be here, under that age.

I still say, and I will insist, that I'm not really informed of anything new here with respect to the section that you cite, because you still have the difficulty of the minor child. I have sympathy when kids go astray and do things they shouldn't, but in this circumstance, that is a major problem for your bill, and that is not addressed in the section that you pointed out to me.

I would go to my colleagues here, because I didn't get their response before, but how do you feel about that fact?

Martin, Arlène, and Michel, I ask you, because we've heard from France already in respect of this. How do you feel about this, I would say, troubling or concerning aspect of the bill? Would you prefer to have more of an exclusion in that amending section, or are you supportive in the very tone that was mentioned before?

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Who would like to begin?

Madame Gaudreault.

10:25 a.m.

President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes

Arlène Gaudreault

The issue of gross negligence is treated differently depending on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions completely exclude negligence with no exceptions, whether it is minor or major. However, in terms of compensation, for example, others will agree to handle even cases involving gross negligence; they simply remove a percentage of benefits. Certain countries as well as certain U.S. states do that.

So, you have all the necessary latitude as decision makers and lawmakers. You can decide, as a government, that you will be compassionate towards the parents of a minor child, because young people are less responsible, because some of the minors who commit crimes are also victims. There is often a fine line between victimization and delinquency. You could decide to be generous.

I would like to tell you something. I have been working in this area now for years—some 40 years. You should come to the regional reception centre when federal inmates are coming in and are being examined for eight weeks. Throughout their sentence, they have access to all kinds of programs. They have a chance to take the addiction program or anger management program three times, or even ten times if they like. However, when the discussion turns to victims, people start nickel and diming and counting pennies. I'm not saying these programs should not be available to inmates, but I am saying that Canadian society has to be more generous. We can be generous with minor children who have engaged in unfortunate actions and misdemeanours. We're talking about the parents here. You have a chance to do that as a society.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

It is my time to conclude.

With respect, Arlène, to what you said, unless the definition is expanded greatly, the victim is the person upon whom the crime has been perpetrated. If we're going to victimize everybody and say that anybody out there affected in any way is the victim, then we have a pretty broad definition and a bit of a difficulty, in my humble opinion, on that.

The victim, in my view, is the individual who the crime has been perpetrated upon. I have great empathy in terms of wanting to support that person, and so on. So I would say there is a great concern here in respect of this aspect, which does not exclude when there is the issue of a 16- or 17-year-old minor. That has to be dealt with, for sure, and the parents have to work it out with that child, and so on, and support where they can, but I would not support the matter of employment benefits to that parent.

10:25 a.m.

President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes

Arlène Gaudreault

If this had happened to you as a parent, would you be happy about society stigmatizing you as well? Would you like society to throw you on the scrap heap and forget you ever existed? Would you like to be told that you're not a good parent?

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

No, you're heading off on another rail here. The point is that the victim is the individual upon whom the crime has been perpetrated, or the deceased person, if it happens to be, but not everybody else surrounding--

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you very much, Mr. Vellacott.

10:25 a.m.

President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes

Arlène Gaudreault

I hope that you won't refuse to pass this bill for that reason alone. You are here to find accommodations. You bring out the subtler points. That is what we expect as an organization that defends the right of victims and represents those victims. As a Conservative government, you brought forward a proposal in March of 2010 which was along the same lines. You now have a chance to take action and move forward.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

All right. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lessard. You have five minutes.

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to express my very sincere thanks to all of you for being here today. This is one of the Committee meetings I have found most valuable. We are talking about what it is to be human. And that is an opportunity for us to think about what we want as a society.

Our society is made up of adults and children. Until what age are children considered to be children? Let me give you an example. Under international law, a child cannot be stigmatized for being forced to enroll in the army or engage in combat. We have the example of a young Omar Khadr who, at the age of 13, was forced into training and then arrested at 15. This government tolerated both his being in prison and being tortured. We also need to talk about that. Are we at a point where we can pass laws that do not discriminate, when dealing with children who have been victimized under similar circumstances? That is what we are talking about here. It is a societal choice; a question of values. It is with that in mind that I'm asking my colleague, Mr. Vellacott, to give this some thought. That is the wrong track.

Otherwise we will be calling into question the age at which one is still considered a child. Is it five years of age or is it six? Or is it until the age of 16, as is the case under our current laws? It would seem that those laws don't mean anything anymore and that the age can now be set at 13 or 15. That is what we are discussing here.

Mr. Vellacott mentioned bills, including some which we supported. They penalize the individual that committed the crime, but they contain nothing—or practically nothing—for the victim. Since I have been a member of Parliament, this is the first time I have seen a bill come before us that aims to help victims' families. Why is it not treated as such?

I'm asking all parliamentarians to recall the bill the Liberals brought forward in 2005 relating to people suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome or war wounds. What was done in that case? Well, a bill was drafted, dealt with on a priority basis and then passed. We agreed, when the session adjourned, that it wasn't perfect, and we can see that today. The parties are now agreeing to make changes so that, rather than a single payment, money will be paid out gradually. And our experience is what allowed us to do that.

I very much appreciate the fact that people who have lived through these kinds of ordeals are appearing before us today. One experienced a terrible tragedy when her child went missing. Two other individuals have outstanding expertise in the legal field. That is exceptional. Two weeks from now, we will be hearing from Mr. Bolduc, whose child was a victim of crime.

There are two important questions. Do we consider a child to be a child, with all the protections that this implies? It is a societal choice. The other question, which is also a societal choice—and in that respect, I want to thank you, Ms. Gaudreault—is whether we want to create new law in this area. Canada has often set an example in that regard. It's not a matter of wondering whether we have the audacity or the courage to do it, but rather, whether this is our duty.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

You used all of your time for your statement, so we will now go to Mr. Provencher for just a few seconds.

10:30 a.m.

As an Individual

Martin Provencher

Thank you.

I would like to comment on what was just said, as I did not have an opportunity to respond earlier. Like others, I am not here because of allegiance to any particular political party. Whoever the sponsor of this bill may be—the Conservative Party, the NDP or any other—I am here because of certain experiences, and this bill is of critical importance to many parents. It's even a principle. I understand the concern; I do understand.

I have said something publicly several times: will the parents, brother or sister of the person who kidnapped my child automatically be categorized? I would just like to give an opinion on that. Let's take the case of someone who commits a crime like that. A minor may have committed a crime, but the parent never stops being a parent, and there are things that have happened and continue to happen in society that are far less acceptable than that. I think we are all here to pass legislation and talk about issues. That is how I see it.

When someone is arrested involving the case of my daughter or someone else, I don't think we will tell the parents that they're responsible. Neither the father nor the mother are responsible. They themselves will be confronted with a tragedy that they should not have to face. That's my opinion. Helping the parents whose child committed a crime, perhaps… How can we amend legislation if that is the reason?

It's important not to forget the real focus of this bill, which is extremely important for the victims. Make whatever changes you feel are necessary; try to reach consensus. Without wanting to necessarily, I am probably reflecting the views of many other parents, but that is what I believe. It's important. We are often asked to try and put ourselves in someone's else shoes. Well, if you were to experience what many parents have experienced, you would probably end up saying the same things we have been saying to you. As citizens, this is what we are asking of you.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you very much, Mr. Provencher.

Mr. Komarnicki.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There's no question, Mr. Provencher, that I can't imagine what a parent must go through where there's a loss of a child or the child is missing. You make your point well. We want you to know we certainly appreciate that, and we're looking at some of the more technical aspects of the bill.

I want to direct my questions to France with respect to what “probably” means. I don't think you suitably answered it, at least for my satisfaction. What do you take that to mean? How would you define “probably”?

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

You are asking me to define “probably”, but under what circumstances? What is your question? Are you asking me what the difference is between “serious” and “not serious”, or between “probably” and “probably not”? Is that what you're asking?

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

No, I'm simply questioning what “probably” means. How would you define “probably”? Because that's a key aspect of the bill. If it's a low threshold to establish facts, and it seems to be a low threshold, my next question would be, what happens if you were wrong or someone was wrong in that estimation? What would you do with respect to the moneys that have been paid out? And who, according to your bill, would be the one who decides that this is probably the case?

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

All right. On November 16, at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities, we will be studying the bill clause by clause. At that time, Mr. Komarnicki, I will be pleased to sit down and discuss this with other parliamentarians, try to set certain limits and define the word “probably”. But I do not wish to do that alone, this morning.

We are here this morning to hear from people about their own personal experiences, what they have been through and what they need. Our discussion this morning is on a human level, rather than a legal one. I am neither a criminologist nor a criminal lawyer, but I am prepared to hear what you have to say.

That is what we will do on November 16.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Okay. All right. I'll take you up on that and certainly will raise that.

Secondly, there's nothing in your bill that says what happens if you've decided that probably this happened, when in fact it later turns out it didn't happen. What does your bill propose in terms of the funds that were paid out in error?

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Komarnicki, a bill is a bill. If you are asking me whether this bill is perfect, well, my answer is that yours are not either. As lawmakers, we are here to see what works and what does not. That's why we will be studying the bill clause by clause and will make a decision in committee.

I'd like to ask Ms. Gaudreault to comment.