44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023
- 05:44:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
The patient-therapist relationship is extremely important, and can help a victim to begin the rehabilitation process and also go to trial.
It can actually enhance reporting requirements when people understand that they won't be subject to the blunt force of an overly comprehensive publication ban.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:44:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you.
Can someone other than the victim also request the lifting of a publication ban, like a spouse, a relative or, in the event of death, a victim's adult child?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:44:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm certain it can't be done by the accused. It applies only to a victim or a witness.
I will defer that question to Mr. Taylor, because I think he had further clarification.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:45:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Based on the wording of the bill, it's for the victim or the person protected by the publication ban, and therefore not for the accused, as the minister explained.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:45:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Madame Brière.
We'll now move to two and a half minutes with Monsieur Fortin.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:45:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In my earlier questions, Minister, I requested an explanation of the conflict of interest which you felt would prevent a Crown attorney from clearly explaining the ins and outs of a publication ban to a victim. I also asked you a subsidiary question, which was to suggest some alternatives. I would now like to hear what you have to say on this.
You no doubt recall that back in the day, when you were a member of this committee, we heard victims complain that they didn't know what was going on, that they were not aware of the existence of publication bans, and that they didn't quite understand how it all worked, or how to lift such a ban if they wanted to. If the Crown attorney is not the person who explains all this to victims involved in a trial, who is, and how would it work?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:46:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much.
According to this bill, it's up to the judge to ask the attorney whether the victim has been consulted to determine whether they want a publication ban, or at least, whether everything possible was done to contact the victim. This requirement is clearly stated in the bill. It gives a—
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:47:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I don't want to be rude, but you know how it works. Time is running out.
That being the case, my understanding is that you agree on the idea that the Crown attorney should explain to victims that they can obtain a publication ban and how the process works, and also how to lift such a ban. All of that would be explained.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:47:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's correct, Mr. Fortin.
I'd also like to point out that a number of provincial governments have already told me that they found the conflict of interest I mentioned problematic. They say that while it's possible to speak with victims, giving them legal advice on what can and cannot be done under the ban could lead to a conflict of interest.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:47:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I agree with you on legal advice, but I believe that explaining things to victims is the Crown attorney's role. I understand that you are more or less in agreement with this, because it's already in the bill.
Thank you, Minister.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:47:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin, you have 25 seconds left.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You told me that I had two and a half minutes, and my time has run out. However, I could continue.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:48:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
No, that's it.
Voices: Oh, oh!
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:48:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:48:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
We've heard a couple of times around the table today about what victims want from people. I think that if we listen carefully to our victims study, and if we look at the literature on victims, it's not always tougher sentences that victims are looking for. Certainly, in my previous work in criminal justice, it was almost always that victims were looking for the same thing to not happen to someone else.
Mr. Minister, I'd like you to talk about the two parts of this bill as they contribute to public safety through the prevention of future offences.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:48:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think the prevention of future offences piece is critical, because it's enhancing the agency and autonomy of a victim to come forward in a manner that complies with the law and that will empower people, particularly women—if we're being frank with the statistics—to share their stories with women, other women and children, so that they can protect themselves. That's important.
I think it's also important that people feel.... If they're coming forward and entering into a criminal justice system that is sometimes fairly traumatizing just to enter into, if they feel a more welcome reception vis-à-vis their autonomy, their dignity and the ability to control their information, that can enhance reporting, which in and of itself is a good thing. It gives us a better handle on the situation, as we share the concerns about crime generally, but it also gives us a better handle on how to address the situation.
I think there are multiple reasons why this could be beneficial if it's implemented correctly. Ultimately, it's about confidence in the criminal justice system—confidence that it will be addressing the needs of victims. That is something I've heard a lot about from this committee in my previous incarnation, and that is something we need to be attentive to.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:49:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's great.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll end my questions there.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:49:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.
We will now go to Mr. Brock for four minutes.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:50:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses in attendance.
Let me use my brief opportunity here to publicly congratulate you, Minister, on your new role. I'm looking forward to having you appear on many occasions.
I want to start off by discussing the narrative of your government, sir, and some talking points that you have used and that your predecessor, David Lametti, used to justify and sell, in my view, Bill C-48 as an important piece of legislation not only to restore public confidence in the administration of justice but also to make our communities safer.
I've heard repeatedly in the House that one of the hallmarks of Bill C-48 is that you've listened. You listened to stakeholders, you listened to premiers, and you listened to chiefs of police and presidents of police associations in forming the specific language to tighten up the reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code and to add to the reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. However, you'll agree with me, sir, that it wasn't just additional reverse onus provisions as they relate to additional firearms offences that these stakeholders were asking for. There was actually a laundry list of other items they asked for that did not find itself in Bill C-48. Not knowing what the agenda is from your department, I don't think you're bringing forward any legislation to even contemplate encompassing the other asks.
With that being said, the provincial governments and the police associations have asked for a thorough review and reform of Canada's bail system. They asked for a definition of “serious prolific offender” or “repeat violent offender” within the confines of Bill C-48. They specifically asked that bail hearings for serious firearms offences be heard by a judge of a provincial court or a superior court as opposed to a justice of the peace, that obligations be strengthened with sureties and that there be consequences for failing obligations.
My ask of you, with the limited amount of time that I have, sir, is why this government, why your department and why you personally have ignored those significant additional measures that the stakeholders are asking for to improve community safety and to restore confidence in our justice system.
388 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
