I would like him to tell me what part of the letter he is talking about.
What was the commissioner saying?
Let him find it. He's the one criticizing it.
I'll try to answer Mr. Casey when I find something that relates to his question maybe, but I have a question for Ms. Arnott.
Am I right to think that the current wording of that provision, namely, “Every victim has the right, on request, to information...”, means that, legally, if the victim does not request information, they will not obtain it? The provision says that a victim has the right to obtain information, and I understand that this means the burden is on the investigator or the crown prosecutor, instead of on the victim. This has to do with the burden.
We understand each other. Finally, the government prefers to place the burden on the victim, rather than on the crown prosecutor or the investigator in charge of the case, who would have to share the information.
I think what Mr. Casey meant to say is that certain types of information in an investigation file, such as someone's address or similar information, cannot be provided to a victim.
I'm not sure what his point was regarding the letter. However, I must say that the words, “has the right...to information”, “the status and outcome of the investigation into the offence”, and “the location of proceedings in relation to the offence, when they will take place” are fairly clear. There is no potentially damaging information there. They do not have to provide any privileged information on the status and outcome of the investigation into the offence.
In any case, I think that clause 20 sets out the type of information that can be provided without jeopardizing the investigation. So victims have a right, but that right is limited by other provisions.
Clause 7 should specify who has the burden to provide information. That is what my amendment is about. Is the information provided because the victim makes a request or because the crown prosecutor or investigator has to provide it?