Evidence of meeting #38 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you for that.
I want to ask you about an important issue that I think you raised, which is the availability of services in both official languages to victims.
I'm going to ask you what I think is an obvious question and one I know the answer to. Are there any avenues of recourse in the current system for getting services such as translations or interpretation of matters for victims? Is there any recourse at this point when victims and offenders are from different language groups?
12:45 p.m.
Full Professor, School of Criminology, International Centre for Comparative Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
There is not, as a member of the public. The victim is a witness to a crime against the state. If they are there during the trial and haven't been invited as a witness, then they are a member of the public and have no other statute whatsoever.
I think that is a mistake. We have to recognize the legitimate interest in what is happening.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Without that, certainly that would leave victims, even if their rights are enforceable, without any ability to exercise their rights within the system. Is that the central problem here?
12:45 p.m.
Full Professor, School of Criminology, International Centre for Comparative Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
That is why I think we have to include the issue of language, etc., in the bill of rights. Again, it's in the UN declaration.
Again, look at the European Union. They are a wonderful example of how that can be dealt with in a multilingual context. There are great examples of what we can do.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
My last question will also be for you, Dr. Wemmers.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you for your patience.
Members, I am looking at the clock. We have about 10 or so minutes left of the meeting. I wanted to clarify something before I divide the remainder of the time for members.
With respect to Mr. Niemi, I know we talked about appending his speaking notes to today's evidence, but I ask members whether we want to continue with what we have agreed to there, or should we be reinviting him for this Thursday? We have to keep in mind that both of the panels for Thursday are filled, with three witnesses per panel, so it may be a bit challenging, but we would do our best to make it work.
If members can give me some clarification around that, it would be helpful.
Mr. Garrison.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know I may not have been the only one who suggested Mr. Niemi as a witness, but I think it's very important, given that these were technical problems that kept him from appearing, that we not simply append his testimony. I agreed to that when I thought he wasn't available, but I think we should invite him on Thursday, and we will deal with the challenges we have.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I agree. As I have indicated, I know Mr. Niemi is a very thoughtful individual who does tremendous work on race relations, and I think his evidence would be useful to have in person.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Perfect. Thank you for that, Mr. Virani.
Based on the discussions here today, we will go ahead and send—
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
I'm so sorry. I didn't see your hand raised, Monsieur Fortin. I usually come to you.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much.
Mr. Clerk will reach out to Mr. Niemi and offer either of the two hours, either the first or the second. We will have four witnesses for one of the panels, then, and we will go from there.
With the remainder of the time, and I realize we have a very hard stop at one o'clock, what I will do, as I did in the last hour, is to offer one question per party, starting with Mr. Cooper, who is appearing in person today.
Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll direct my question to Senator Boisvenu, who is to be commended for his tireless advocacy for and support of victims.
I want to provide you, Senator, with an opportunity to elaborate on a point you made respecting the need to make the victims ombudsman independent and report directly to Parliament. You briefly touched upon it. Could you elaborate on that?
Second, do you see any need for or benefit to making the ombudsman permanent, as opposed to being housed in the Department of Justice? I know this is an issue that was brought forward by our former colleague, Sylvie Boucher, by way of a private member's bill in the last Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu Senator
I'd like to thank the member for raising a very important point.
Like many other MPs, I too would like to offer my condolences to the people of London for the recent events.
Because the ombudsman deals with complaints from all federal agencies and the position is accountable to a single department, it's only a matter of time before there will be a conflict of interest.
In 2017 or 2018, a bill was introduced by MP Sylvie Boucher, I believe, to have the position report to the House of Commons, and made permanent.
The ombudsman position is at the moment a program that is accountable to the Department of Justice and that can be eliminated at any time. The position was not created by an act of Parliament. It's important to make the position permanent and part of the structure because victims are just as important as criminals, who have the benefit of an investigator who is part of the permanent structure, under an act, and reporting to Parliament. Yet again, it would appear that victims are being treated as second-rate people, while criminals are assigned more importance.
I don't want to take away any rights from the correctional investigator position, but would like to see the ombudsman position placed on an equal footing with the correctional investigator by establishing the position under an act and ensuring that the ombudsman is accountable to Parliament. In this way, all parties, and not just the minister, would be able to question the ombudsman about any failings in the system with respect to the treatment of crime victims.
It's a very important matter, and I trust that the committee will look into it with a view to a future proposal.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Senator.
We'll now go to you, Mr. Sarai, for your one question.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for all the work they're doing in this regard. This is a very important issue. Sometimes the victims in crimes are much forgotten in terms of how they're perceived.
This question goes on from one of the panellists who was talking before about the children of the accused being victims. What I want to ask about is maybe for Dr. Wemmers and Mr. Russomanno with regard to intimate person violence, whereby that victim ends up being the child of the victim as well as of the accused. How do you think this bill of rights could be amended, changed or bettered by services, so that we could help them? They might be a witness to the crime. They might be the child of the accused and also the child of the victim.
Can you can quickly elaborate on that?
Dr. Wemmers, you're first.
12:50 p.m.
Full Professor, School of Criminology, International Centre for Comparative Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
The research is increasingly clear that children are not just witnesses to domestic violence but also victims of domestic violence, and it's important to recognize that.
They're not indirect victims. They are direct victims in being exposed to the violence, and we know very well the impact it can have on them in terms of trauma.
I think that's the first thing: that we stop looking at them as being indirect victims but recognize them as being direct victims, suffering trauma as a result of their exposure to violence in the household.
12:50 p.m.
Lawyer, Criminal Lawyers' Association
It's a good question.
I believe, as it stands now, that the Victims Bill of Rights recognizes that family members of victims of crime, including in the example you've provided, would be considered victims for the purposes of this legislation. With the added overlap that they're also a family member of the accused, I don't think any more would be required to have them fit under this bill.
To follow up on the comments made by panellists in the previous session, it's important to recognize that there are family members of incarcerated individuals and accused persons who also suffer greatly from the commission of crimes, and that they are, directly or indirectly, affected in significant ways. Incarceration is obviously a massive disruption that often affects not only the accused person who is being imprisoned, but other family members as well, who lose a loved one for a significant period of time, or a source of income on which they're dependent, or emotional support. There's a variety of ways in which family members of the accused person suffer greatly.
