Justice Committee on Oct. 9th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll call this meeting back to order.

It's the second hour of the start of our review of Bill C-32.

For the second panel we have a number of witnesses.

We have witnesses from the Department of Justice, who were previously introduced.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ms. Thompson is here. She's the assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch. Also here is Mr. Churney, director of corrections policy. From the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Don Head, commissioner. He's the head commissioner.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It's late, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

From the Parole Board of Canada, Monsieur Clair is here. He's the executive director general.

I've asked, and there are actually no presentations. They're here to answer questions about Bill C-32, so we're going to go right to questions.

I'm assuming that from the New Democratic Party it's going to be Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You are assuming right—and “Boivin” means “drink wine”, to stick with your “head” joke, but anyway....

We are happy to welcome you to the committee. However, time is marching on, and I have many questions for you all, although I know I won't have enough time to ask all of them.

My first question is for the representatives of the Department of Justice, Ms. Morency and Ms. Arnott. Clause 2 of the bill reads as follows:

“offence” means an offence under the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act or the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, a designated substance offence as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or an offence under section 91 or Part 3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

That seems like quite a lot, but in spite of everything, the Canadian victims bill of rights does not apply to some laws. For example, why doesn't it apply to the Competition Act? I am thinking about how there are more and more victims of telemarketing fraud, for example. Why leave out the National Defence Act? I am trying not to generalize, but there are offences we hear about. It is as though this is a separate system. Are these victims second-class victims?

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

Thank you for your question.

I will deal with the application issue first. We chose the laws outlined in the bill because offences committed under these acts create by far the most victims in Canada. As the minister was saying, this is a first step for Canada. Based on our analysis, we determined that this bill could cover the vast majority of victims in our country.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Wouldn't it be better to cover all the victims? Wouldn't this create a system with second-class victims?

[Pamela Arnott]

We do not think so. We considered whether we could make this bill apply to all federal legislation. We found that we had to start by taking a first step to ensure that the vast majority of victims in Canada were covered.

In terms of applying this bill to the military justice system, I can say that we are working very closely with our colleagues at National Defence. They have a separate and quite distinct justice system, for a variety of reasons. Given the time we had to draft the bill, we were unable to continue with that step, but we are still actively working on it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

During the debate at second reading, the minister spoke of a bill with quasi-constitutional status. Could you explain what this means? How would that apply? What kind of precedence could this have over other legislation? Would it prevail over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? How would all of this be interpreted?

[Pamela Arnott]

The term “quasi-constitutional” means that, according to the government, this is a bill that incorporates values and principles that have some primacy in Canadian society. There are a few other laws that have this status, including the Privacy Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Official Languages Act, for example. That is why we are proposing in clause 19 of the bill that in cases where this bill is inconsistent with other quasi-constitutional provisions, the courts are responsible for ensuring that these values can be integrated and balanced.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Could you give us an example of that? I'm having trouble visualizing what you are talking about. You must have foreseen the particular context of what could arise.

[Pamela Arnott]

I will use an example based on official languages.

An offender requests that his trial be conducted in their official language, either English or French, while the victim prefers to submit his impact statement in the other official language. We are therefore faced with the victim's right to submit a statement and the accused's right to a trial in a language of his choice. We are asking, through the application of clause 19, that the courts consider these two fundamental values and strike the right balance between the two.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That would not necessarily preclude the application of the Official Languages Act. In such a case, the judge would probably have to find a translator or an interpreter to ensure compliance with both acts.

[Pamela Arnott]

That's right.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I understood that we were giving a certain primacy to the bill, which in this case would mean that francophones could be denied certain rights. You are telling me that this is not the case. Essentially, the message sent to the courts is that they should try to apply these quasi-constitutional laws equally.

[Pamela Arnott]

Yes.

I would like to clarify that we are talking about laws with quasi-constitutional status. When it comes to other federal legislatures, the law provides for the primacy of the bill of rights.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I really like to work with examples to see how all of this applies. If you happen to think of an example, I would appreciate it if you would tell us about it.

[Pamela Arnott]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Thank you for those answers.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Dechert.

I encourage all committee members, if you have questions for specific witnesses, to let them know who you're actually asking. Thank you very much.

The time is yours.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thanks to each of our officials for being here today.

I just want to say that I'm always very impressed with the quality of the professionalism of our public servants and officials who appear before our committee. I want to thank each of you for the good work you do every day on behalf of Canadians.

My first question is for Ms. Morency. It's good to see you again.

I know that you worked very significantly on the victims bill of rights. When the victims bill of rights was being considered, a number of victims groups mentioned that they would like to see victims have some kind of standing in criminal court proceedings, perhaps to be able to participate in plea bargain discussions and things of that nature.

I wonder if you could tell us what problems, if any, you saw in granting such standing to victims. What impact would it have had and what would the positions have been of the provinces if something like that had been included?

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

As the minister said in his remarks, victims do not currently have standing in a criminal process. To provide victims with standing would be to essentially introduce a whole new party to the process. Right now the criminal process consists of the state and the offender, and the crown represents the victim, the state at large. It's true, as the minister said, that some victims or organizations representing victims were supportive of receiving standing throughout the criminal justice process, but many victims also said that they didn't want to cause upset to the overall system, cause further delays and impede the efficiency of the process. That was one of the considerations taken into account, as the minister said. That was a challenge.

Was there a different way to achieve the voice that victims were asking for, to be represented throughout the system? I think that's in some of the measures the minister mentioned: giving victims a stronger voice through the victim impact statement and community impact statement, and requiring the crown to take reasonable steps to consult with victims before a plea is accepted.

The balance that the bill seeks to achieve is to recognize what is at the heart of the victim's seeking standing and ask if there is a different way to achieve this, in a way that won't upset or impede the efficiency of the system.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you very much.

My next question, Mr. Chair, is for the Department of Public Safety, either Ms. Thompson or Mr. Churney, whoever wishes to answer.

The victims bill of rights contains rights to information. A lot of what we heard through the consultation process and we hear just generally from victims of crime all the time—and we heard it from the families of victims of violence against indigenous women at that committee's proceedings—is that when a terrible assault or some other kind of crime is committed on a person or a family member, individuals make a statement to the police, and they hear nothing further about the case until maybe somebody is charged, and they'll find that out, and then they'll find out maybe when there's a trial.

I wonder if you could talk about the provisions of the victims bill of rights that would provide more information to victims about the process, from the day the investigation starts to the end of the trial process.

[Kathy Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for the question. I'll start, and then I'll invite Mr. Churney to add anything to my remarks.

With respect to the investigation, certainly the victim will have a right to have information with respect to the ongoing investigation, as Ms. Morency said, not to impede in any way the investigation—there is always the independence of the police—but they will have the right to be kept informed of the investigation.

With respect to an offender serving a sentence, they will have a right to have information on the progress of the offender with respect to their correctional plan, for example, programming that they're following, progress that they're making. As well, they will have a right to be informed of mediation, victim-offender mediation services that are available through Correctional Services Canada.

They will also, as the minister said a few moments ago, have a right when an offender is released to have access through a secure portal to a recent photograph of the offender. Assuming there are no public safety risks to disclosing information, 14 days prior to the release of the offender they will have a right to have information with respect to the date, the location, and any conditions on the release of the offender.

With respect to the parole hearing, they will have a right to present a statement and to designate an official to receive information for them. As well, they will automatically receive a copy of the parole decision.

[Daryl Churney, Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

There's not much to add beyond that. Ms. Thompson was pretty comprehensive.

I would just say that, as the minister alluded to in his remarks, the intent of the victims bill of rights really is to build on a pretty strong, solid foundation that already exists. I would say within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as it stands right now there is a wide range of information that is disclosable to victims.

We were quite conscientious as we were drafting the bill to think about what else we could provide to victims and what other kinds of information they are looking for. We did pay very close attention during the consultations to anything else that we could think to add into the act. As Ms. Thompson said, that includes things like a photograph of the offender. We will make mandatory the release of information related to date, destination of release, victim-offender remediations.

I would just say that we're really building on a pretty good foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Scarpaleggia from the Liberal Party.