Mr. Chair, just to refresh memories of the document “A Cornerstone for Change – A Response to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime”, what the ombudsman put forward there is:
The definition of who can exercise rights on behalf of a victim does not include partners who do not cohabit with the victim or close friends of the victim. [...] This can be overly restrictive for victims who may be disconnected from family or who have chosen not to live with their partners. This definition should be expanded to allow victims who may not be in contact with family or living in nontraditional arrangements to be represented.
That comes directly from the ombudsman's evidence and testimony. As you can see, consistent with what I was also attempting to do in the first amendment, in the second amendment you'll find on page 3 just after line 7 that we would add:
(j) any other individual who a court has, on application by that individual, determined to be an appropriate individual to exercise the victim's rights on behalf of the victim.
We create an opportunity for judicial discretion to assess on a case-by-case basis whether somebody has a close enough relationship with somebody who has been a victim to have access to the rights that are being created under this legislation.
Thank you.