That's right.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-16.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-16.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
That's right.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you.
We had other witnesses who came forward. Somebody, for example, said that it made no sense for their dog to be included but not the dog that is owned by somebody else, because the ownership of the dog is confined to the individual concerned. I think we do need to look at that section.
How much time do I have, Chair?
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
On the question of independent legal counsel, as we know, provinces generally are responsible for that issue. We have legal aid services.
Can you talk about where you see the federal government perhaps co-operating with the provinces? How would this bill deal with, for example, independent legal representation?
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
We know that the DOJ does fund ILA, independent legal advice for various clinics across the country, although not uniformly, so there are provinces that don't get these benefits, but it's not for independent legal standing necessarily in court from the start to the finish.
I know that we're running out of time.
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
I appreciate that.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for joining us today. Bill C‑16 is important, and their insights are always valuable to us.
Ms. Marinos, I'm going to leave your area of expertise and talk about children.
Bill C‑16 proposes provisions on femicide. Can you give me your legal definition of femicide?
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
Thank you very much for the question.
I'm not an expert on femicide.
As I said, I don't prosecute cases. I believe that this is an attempt to deal with a problem that we're facing across the country. We've seen so many femicides in Canada, too many. It is an attempt to take the various provisions from—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I apologize for interrupting you, but time is running out.
There's no definition of hate, yet hate could be included in the definition of femicide. Furthermore, many people often equate femicide with any murder committed against a woman.
Should that be the case or not?
Should we distinguish between the murder of a woman at random—for example, while she is in a bank during an armed robbery—and the murder of a woman by her husband or partner, who kills her for financial gain because she has a good insurance policy? What about the murder of a woman because of a general hatred of women, such as what happened at Polytechnique a long time ago?
These three cases still seem different to me.
In your opinion, is it femicide in all three cases?
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
The Polytechnique would be a clear example in my mind of femicide. Other cases may not be as clear, but we heard from the witness, Ms. Cooke. That's the kind of situation we would be trying to avoid with these sorts of provisions so that we don't get to that point.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
When trying to define femicide, we wonder whether we should distinguish between girls and women—we discussed this at the last meeting. I still haven't quite grasped the distinction between the two. I'd like to hear someone's opinion on the subject someday.
Beyond that, let's take the example of a transgender person born in a male body who, through a process, becomes a woman.
In your opinion, should we consider this person to be a woman or a girl and, if so, should we classify their potential murder as a femicide?
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
I think, Monsieur Fortin, you're getting outside the ambit of my organization's expertise. We all have our personal views about that, but—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, I understand.
I'd like to address another topic, if I may.
The issue of harassment arises with Bill C‑16, namely whether we want to define fear as subjective rather than objective. Do you think this is a good idea?
Let's take the example of a person who is being harassed or threatened with a crime, for example, someone who is told that their cat will be killed. Should we assess that person's fear based on an objective or subjective criterion? In other words, should we ask whether a reasonable person would fear something in such a case, or—regardless of how a reasonable person might react—whether the victim of the threat actually feels that fear?
Do you have an opinion or expertise on this matter?
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
I don't have expertise on that. I'd have to look at the provision to see how exactly that provision is worded, if it's subjective or objective. I would think that you'd have to have a subjective fear.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay, I understand.
I'm going to move on to a third topic.
Please excuse me if I'm moving quickly but, like my colleague, I'm trying to take advantage of your legal expertise.
I was talking to you about time limits and the Jordan decision, specifically about trials that are abandoned because there isn't enough time to hold them within a reasonable time frame. I believe the time limits set by the Supreme Court of Canada—that is, 18 months for provincial courts or the Court of Québec and 30 months for superior courts—seem reasonable to me. However, we are unable to meet them for all sorts of reasons we won't go into today.
Bill C‑16 proposes certain provisions to revise how time limits are calculated and to allow courts, in certain cases, to impose consequences other than dismissing the case.
I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Is this a good idea or not?
Before you give me your opinion, I'd like to clarify something now, because I may not have time to do so later. We're often told that if we give courts too much leeway to deviate from the 18-month and 30-month deadlines, we could send a signal that the deadlines are less important and create a situation where courts will be more likely to let the deadlines lapse.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
Chief General Counsel, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
I think it's a good thing to set the parameters around those delays. We've seen delay be a huge issue in the justice system, with stays of proceedings that are granted and victims who don't see accountability for crimes that have been committed. I think it's a good thing to set those limits.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Fortin, your time is up.
We're going to start the second round. It's a five-minute round, so we're going to go to one Conservative, one Liberal and the Bloc, and then we're going to have to stop. Then we have to pass our budget, and we'll be done by 6:30.
Mr. Lawton, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses.
I'd like to turn to the witnesses from the Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association.
I'm not sure which of you would like to address this, but just to establish, as a baseline, you view mandatory minimum sentences as having a very important role in the criminal justice system. Is that correct?
Board Chair, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
Yes, we do.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
When we look at the way we're trying to protect those, hopefully, in the course of our work on Bill C-16, I just want to point out that in the Senneville decision, which triggered this part, we actually saw at the lower court level a judge go below the mandatory minimum sentence and give an offender, who had possessed hundreds of videos and images of children as young as, I believe, four, a 90-day sentence.
From your perspective, when we already had a mandatory minimum in place and that decision came down, how can we stop that, moving forward?
Board Chair, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
I'm sorry, but is the question how we stop judges from going below the mandatory minimum?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Yes. I know that you and other investigators have seen judges disregard what I think a lot of people in society and certainly a lot of the people who elect us would expect of the justice system. I'm just wondering what legal tools we can use to ensure that we actually have mandatory minimums that have teeth.