Evidence of meeting #108 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Yves Gratton  Lawyer, Criminal Section, Aide juridique de Montréal, Laval
Caitlin Shane  Lawyer, Pivot Legal Society
Moses  Lawyer, Pivot Legal Society
Robert Leckey  Law Professor, McGill University, and Past-President, Egale Canada, Egale Canada Human Rights Trust
Steve Coughlan  Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Tom Hooper  Contract Faculty, Law and Society Program, York University, As an Individual
Gary Kinsman  Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Laurentian University, As an Individual
Calla Barnett  Board President, Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity
John Sewell  Member, Toronto Police Accountability Coalition
Joel Hechter  Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Rick Woodburn  President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
Christian Leuprecht  Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Bruno Serre  Executive Board Member, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues
Karen Wiebe  Executive Director, Manitoba Organization for Victim Assistance
Nancy Roy  Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues
Maureen Basnicki  As an Individual
Julia Beazley  Director, Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Arif Virani  Parkdale—High Park, Lib.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Thank you very much.

Mr. Serre.

7:50 p.m.

Executive Board Member, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Bruno Serre

I'd like to continue in the same vein.

When you are a victim, you don't have many rights. The first time you go to court before a judge, it's your first experience and you want it to be the last. No one is interested in going back. It's really a first, and you know nothing. You have no rights but you see that the accused, for his part, has all the rights. Even I was warned that that if I did not stop looking at and intimidating the accused, the judge would make me leave the court and I would no longer have the right to be present at the trial.

How does a victim feel when they are there? I saw a photo of a statue on Facebook with an empty centre. That is the victim. When you lose someone who is dear to you, you have this very large void at the centre of your being; your loved one is no longer there.

I can't explain to you the pain a victim goes through. I understand the other victims when I meet them, I know what they go through, it's visceral. No two victims are the same. Among all of those I met, no one experienced the tragedy in the same way; it's never the same. It's always something that has to be begun anew and explained. It's not the same pain; no one experiences this in the same way. The approach is always different.

Unfortunately, the victims are often poorly informed. They need to be better informed. A lot of importance is given to the accused and not much to the victims. It doesn't take much. We have to give information to the victims, take care of them and protect them.

Earlier I said that the victims of conjugal tragedies were never protected. If they denounce someone, they are the ones who will suffer because the accused will avenge themselves. They have no protection at all.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Thank you.

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

You have one minute left.

Mr. Cooper.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

You really have to wonder about this government's priorities. The government has taken more than a year to fill the victims ombudsman position. We have government MPs who voted against legislation to strengthen the independence of the victims ombudsman. As Ms. Basnicki pointed out, we have a government that enriched Omar Khadr with $10.5 million. Now this.

It is hybridizing offences, not the most serious imaginable but among the most serious in the Criminal Code, including terrorism-related offences, impaired driving-related offences, material benefit in the context of human trafficking, and for what? To download these cases onto provincial courts that are already overstretched and overburdened that will now have an 18-month rather than 30-month Jordan timeline, how does that make sense?

Whoever wishes can answer.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

That is more rhetorical than a question for the witnesses. We're past six and a half minutes, so if anybody wants to give a brief answer, they can.

Is there anybody who actually wants to answer that?

7:55 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual

Dr. Christian Leuprecht

Look, I think it would be—

Sorry. Go ahead.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Is there anybody who is answering?

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Manitoba Organization for Victim Assistance

Karen Wiebe

Yes. I can answer that.

This is a very large hole and a very difficult topic to discuss, because victims are in agony for as long as the rest of their lives. You have a trial that takes eight years, like the case I stated, where these parents were also witnesses, so they couldn't even attend the trial until after they had given testimony, so they didn't even know all the details of the trial.

In those situations where it is so elongated, it's ridiculous. With 18 months, or a much smaller length of time to try to deal with those cases, one wonders if that can cover everything. One wonders if justice can be served in that amount of time. Who's doing the work? Does it mean that if there's no preliminary hearing, the case is going to be handled as appropriately as possible?

Sorry, I'm getting an echo here and it's making it difficult to hear.

It's very difficult to give a certain length of time that all trials should take. Unloading onto provincial courts is not the answer, but I think both the federal and the provincial justice systems need to work together to make sure there isn't an eight-year trial process, but that there is a process that is appropriate to what is needed for those cases so justice can be served for everybody involved.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you.

Mr. Boissonnault.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses who came here tonight.

I am going to speak to Ms. Roy, and then I will yield the last minute of my speaking time to Mr. Virani.

Ms. Roy, did you see that the definition of “intimate partner” was added to paragraph 1(3) of the bill, and that this amends section 2 of the Criminal Code? Are you pleased with that addition?

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Nancy Roy

Of course, and that is what we came to tell you today. We are pleased with that addition, but unfortunately we are less enthusiastic about the recidivism aspect.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Yes, that was very clear.

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Nancy Roy

I don't know what happens elsewhere in Canada, but in Quebec unfortunately, from week to week, there is an epidemic of young women who are being killed, and not necessarily by repeat offenders. That is why we are asking you today to courageously represent the victims. We have a bill of rights, and if I can...

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

I have to interrupt you here, because I have three other questions to ask and I have five and a half minutes left.

Is the expression “partenaire amoureux” being used in the French version equivalent to the English term “dating partner”? If they are not, why not?

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Nancy Roy

I am not a translation expert.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

You don't have to be. Just tell us what it means to you.

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Nancy Roy

To us, it encompassed the definition or the issue, but we had a problem with the repeat offender aspect. That does not represent reality. That is why we would like to see that withdrawn.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

On that matter, you commended the reversal of the burden of proof. The document you submitted makes that clear. Your reservations are strictly about the recidivism aspect.

Can you explain why you have reservations about that?

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Nancy Roy

In our opinion, the reversal of the burden of proof would protect the victims. It is almost equivalent to what we were asking for in the beginning, which was preventive arrest, which would calm down the aggressors.

If you reverse the burden of proof, all of the attention is focused not on the victim but on the aggressor. It's up to him to prove that he is not dangerous. In that way we provide more protection for the victims, and that is very important to us. It's major. This is almost equivalent to preventive arrest. That is what we wanted, but it would never have been deemed constitutional.

8 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

I started speaking too quickly. I wanted first to thank you for your work. I lost my sister Lisa when I was 27. She was seven years younger than me. Even 30 years later science can't tell us why Lisa died. I had no one to be angry at, and I couldn't take legal action. I can't imagine the burden victims' families carry. And so I commend you for your work. I am also speaking to you, Mr. Serre, and I admire everything you have done for the community.

We have a very delicate question that concerns preliminary inquiries. During our study on human trafficking, we heard that most often, a person who left the human trafficking network and wanted to take legal action had to testify at preliminary inquiries, not just once, but two, three or even four times, and that this always had the effect of victimizing that person or the witnesses.

Does that compare to your experience and to that of the victims your work with?

8 p.m.

Executive Board Member, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Bruno Serre

I can answer that. It is indeed very difficult for the victims to go through several trials or several preliminary inquiries. If after one trial you have to go through another two years later—or another preliminary inquiry—you relive all of your loss and grief. You go through the same states, the same distress. It's like the movie Groundhog Day. It's exactly the same thing. The victims feel that, and hope that there won't be multiple trials. It's always preferable that there be as few as possible.

8 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

In your opinion Ms. Roy, would eliminating preliminary inquiries give victims greater protection? Is that correct?

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues

Nancy Roy

Yes, we think so. When the victims go through a judicial process, they are often disheartened about coming back to testify or from continuing to do so. We have to protect them as much as possible, and see to it that they are not vulnerable when they come to testify.

8 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

I thank both of you. This was very good of you.

Ms. Beazley, section 75, the repeal of the bawdy house laws, your clarification suggestion, in your opinion that clarification would still permit the gay men who were arrested in the bawdy house and bath house raids from the 1980s to the 2000s to have those records expunged.

If that could be clarified, then we could then do what we need to do with that other piece of legislation. Your recommendation wouldn't stop that from taking place. That was not your intention. Is that correct?