Evidence of meeting #28 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Do we have the exact language?
Let's suspend. Nobody leave the room, please. In fact, nobody go beyond the end of the table. Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I have no further interventions. We're supporting it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-36 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to CPC-30.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I so move.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 141 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 142 agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
New clause 142.1 takes us to NDP-25.
NDP-25 is deemed moved. Does anybody have any comment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 143 agreed to)
New clause 143.1 takes us to CPC-31.
Mr. Brock, go ahead.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
The origin of this amendment comes directly from the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. He did testify during your absence, Chair, and specifically the thrust of his submissions to committee was that currently the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is not legally enforceable due to sections 27 to 29.
As drafted, section 27 says as follows:
Nothing in this Act is to be construed as granting to, or removing from, any victim or any individual acting on behalf of a victim the status of party, intervenor or observer in any proceedings.
His commentary given in testimony was, with respect to clause 27 is that “Victims are denied standing—the legal recognition to appear or participate in proceedings. This means they cannot bring a lawsuit or intervene in a case to assert their rights.”
Section 28, no cause of action, says:
No cause of action or right to damages arises from an infringement or denial of a right under this Act.
His commentary was that “A cause of action creates legal liability for an act or omission. Without it, victims have no remedy if their rights are violated: no way to challenge mistreatment, seek a court order to or claim damages.”
Section 29, no appeal, says:
No appeal lies from any decision or order solely on the grounds that a right under this Act has been infringed or denied.
His commentary is that “If a victim’s rights are denied by a decision of a criminal justice professional or order of a Court, there is no way to appeal that decision based on CVBR rights alone.” On the impact of clauses 27 through 29, he says, “These three clauses are widely recognized as rendering the CVBR symbolic rather than enforceable. Without enforcement mechanisms, there are few legal opportunities to clarify or expand victims’ rights through case law.”
I'm sure that maybe with the exception of some members on the Liberal team currently.... We've all probably taken meetings over the last several years from the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. I know I have since being elected in September 2021. This has been a long-standing concern that he has been advocating for. He has been speaking to the Liberal government. These requests have largely fallen on deaf ears. He has appeared at numerous committees repeating the same language asking for enforceable rights. Victims are asking for enforceable rights and for the life of me I can't imagine why Ms. Gladu and Ms. Khalid, being former members of the status of women committee, would not seek to expand victims' rights.
That's my intervention. Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I have a question for the officials.
My colleague has just proposed his amendment. My question to you is that he says it repeals sections 27 to 29 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. In your opinion does it actually create these enforceable rights, and are there any concerns the members need to consider before making a decision?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not possible to predict with certainty what the effect of repealing those provisions would be, but there are some legal principles to which we can turn to figure out what impact that might have. I think the starting point would be what these provisions did when they were enacted. The intention behind sections 27 to 29 was to state that nothing in the CVBR either granted or took away from victims any standing or any rights to bring actions that they had beforehand. It didn't create any new causes of action, and it didn't extinguish any.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
By repealing them, are we guaranteed that there are going to be enforceable rights?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If that's the starting point, then we have to look at where the causes of action would come from. If it didn't create any new causes of action, but it didn't extinguish any, what are the causes of action? A civil cause of action can come from an existing tort, in common law, or it can be in statute, or it can be in the Quebec civil code. For example, if section 28 were to be repealed, and there was no express wording creating a cause of action for an infringement of a right under the CVBR, it seems unlikely that repealing section 28 alone would create a cause of action.
I think the possible unintended consequence of repealing those provisions is to create the impression that something is going to happen that may not. It's not known how courts will interpret the repeal of those provisions. It may be that it has an impact on causes of action, but it will certainly create the impression that something is happening. Victims may have their expectations raised, and it may lead to dissatisfaction.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I see hands going up, so I'll call it a tie. I'll go to Mr. Brock and then Ms. Gladu.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
To Ms. Sigouin, I'm looking at the briefing note I received from the federal ombudsperson, and I listened to what you had to say about causes and avenues to seek redress. His commentary is that “Victims should have the right to seek judicial or administrative review when their statutory rights are disregarded, just as other participants in the justice system can challenge unlawful decisions.”
Would you agree with that statement?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The criminal justice system is a two-party, adversarial system and, with some limited exceptions, victims do not have standing in the criminal justice process, so that would be a fundamental change to the current system.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
That's what we're trying to change. It's to give victims status and to give victims standing.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I understand that, and my response is that it would be a fundamental change to the criminal justice system that we have right now.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Where's the problem in that? You talked about unintended consequences.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
When I was speaking about—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
What is the danger in giving victims more rights in this process?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The unintended consequences I was speaking of were that if it was intended to create a cause of action by repealing section 28 and it didn't have that effect, victims would be expecting one thing but receiving a different result.