Justice Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to call this meeting to order. We are the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 54. As orders of the day, we are going to deal with Bill C-32, and we are going to do the clause-by-clause study.

We usually do committee business at the end, but we're going to do it first. We're going to distribute it. Just so you know, there is a new version of the subcommittee on agenda that's coming up, because we had a request at that committee for an attempt to get the minister to come earlier than December 4. I will profusely thank the minister, as he rearranged his schedule, and he is actually coming on Thursday. We have a new report that's out, so committee business on Thursday, we'll be dealing with supplementary estimates (B), and we'll have the minister for the first hour and departmental officials for the second hour. We've invited the departmental officials whose estimates are affected.

Depending on what we do today, if we get through everything today, we'll be done with the bill today, but if clause-by-clause needs to be extended, we will do that the following Tuesday. We will also do Bill S-221, which is a private member's bill dealing with public transit operators. Based on the discussions that I've had, my understanding is that we'll have the sponsor of the bill from the Senate and from the House here. If you have any suggestions for witnesses, let us know. It was unanimous in the House, so I think just a discussion with them is likely all we need. Then we'll go back to clause-by-clause study on Bill C-32 if we're not done.

On the Thursday we'll start a review of Bill S-2 and we'll just continue on with Bill S-2 until we're done with it. Then we'll see what happens.

Is somebody willing to move that? It's so moved.

(Motion agreed to)

We're going to go now to a motion coming from the government side on clause 2. It's at the beginning, so I need to wait for it. We're just getting it photocopied. I think it's on your desks already, but the mover of the motion doesn't have a copy of it.

Today, as per the order of reference of June 20 on Bill C-32, we are going to do the clause-by-clause study on the victims bill of rights. We are joined here today by witnesses from both the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. They are here only to answer questions that come up on any specific clause.

As you know, the short title is postponed until the end, so as chair I will call clause 2.

(On clause 2—Enactment of Act)

Mr. Goguen, your hand is up, and you'd like to propose something.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, one of the amendments that we proposed was omitted, and it has to do with the testimony that Sharon Rosenfeldt gave. You will remember that Sharon Rosenfeldt is a pioneer in victims' rights with 33 years of work in the field of victims' rights. In her testimony, she had proposed that we amend clause 2 by adding at the very end “including respect for their dignity”, in regard to the victims. This whole bill is about making the criminal law field more dignified and treating the victims with dignity, so it's certainly in keeping with the very spirit of the bill.

With your indulgence, I would make that amendment. I've circulated it to the members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, you've circulated it. I understand apologies were sent that they didn't come on Friday, so we're doing it today.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It was an oversight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Any questions to the mover on that particular item?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I have a quick one. The French will be reviewed because I'm not sure that “including respect for their dignity” is translated by

“notamment celui de leur dignité”.

I am listening to the English, and we have a proper translation of the expression.

The wording, “incluant le respect de leur dignité”, would be a better translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ms. Arnott, did you have your hand up? Do you really want to become involved in a French-English discussion?

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

I can simply indicate to the committee that the French and English drafters reviewed the text, as did their respective editors, and they provided us assurances that those two meanings were consistent.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Actually what you're telling me is that “including respect for their dignity” is notamment, celui de leur dignité are exactly the same. Is that what you just told me?

[Pamela Arnott]

Yes, that's the advice from the drafting section.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Honestly, I am surprised. Not to start on the wrong foot, but after doing what we did on this package of proposals to change the quality of French, please check this again before we.... We have two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll double-check to make sure that the French and English, as with all legislation, is reviewed to make sure that it matches correctly. If you have a suggestion, you can bring it forward.

With that, all those in favour of, we'll call it amendment government A, please signify.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next one we have on our list is an amendment to clause 2 from the Liberals. I am making a ruling on it.

Mr. Casey, I'm assuming you're moving it.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Yes. May I speak to it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Well, let me tell you what my ruling is, and then you decide. I'll give you a few minutes to speak to it afterwards.

The ruling is this. The amendment to the bill as referred to the committee after second reading is out of order, as it is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill. Basically, because the amendment deals with issues outside of Canada, it is outside the scope of the bill. That is the ruling, based on the information from our legislative clerk on that.

That is the ruling. I'm ruling it out of order, but I'll let you speak to it for a few minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I would call this the 9/11 amendment. You will all remember the very powerful testimony of Maureen Basnicki, the unwilling member of the victims of crime club. This amendment was specifically targeted to accommodate her wishes, so it's extremely unfortunate that the chair has ruled it out of order.

It is also unfortunate that no amendment came forward from anyone else to try to find something that is in order and that would allow this group of victims to be included in this legislation. I would urge my colleagues opposite to go back to the drawing board so that they can perhaps come up with some sort of explanation for Maureen Basnicki.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair and ask for a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Absolutely.

The chair has been challenged, so we'll have a recorded vote. You're voting on the motion that the chair's ruling be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The chair's ruling is sustained, so the amendment stays out of order. Thank you very much for that, and my feelings aren't hurt at all.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Anyway, our next item.... As we know, we have our guest from the Green Party here today, who has a number of amendments.

I assume you would like to move amendment PV-1.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm not allowed to move it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It is deemed moved.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It is deemed moved. I know I'm your guest, but I'm also here, and it's in response to a motion passed by this committee, identical to motions passed by other—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have one minute, and your time is clicking.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This motion, as we know, is deemed moved because I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm not allowed to present amendments at report stage any longer because this opportunity has been made available to me. It's not the fault of any of you that I feel coerced, but there you are.

The amendment I'm suggesting, while not endorsed by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, certainly Sue O'Sullivan's testimony and evidence to this committee was that the ambit of people who can be considered victims as a result of a crime should be expanded.

What Green Party amendment PV-1 attempts to do is merely change paragraph (b) of proposed section 3 on page 2 by removing the words “in a conjugal relationship”. It would read that you were “cohabiting” and therefore would be someone who has access to the redress that is made available to victims under this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Is there any other discussion on PV-1?

(Amendment negatived)

Amendment PV-2, Madam May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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.