44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023
- 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
- 05:52:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Brock, for the question.
I'd put it to you simply that no one is being ignored by me or by my department with respect to the conversation about community safety.
What I would underscore for you is that the conversation on bail reform started with a letter that came from the premiers to the Prime Minister after an FPT that occurred in October 2022. That letter had a very specific ask, and we added to that ask in terms of developing the legislation. To the one firearms offence listed there, we added another three.
You and I share the same province, the province of Ontario. Doug Ford's government and Doug Downey, as the AG, have been very complimentary in terms of what we've been doing and very supportive in terms of what we've been doing.
What I found unique about the situation is that we had the support behind that bill of all 13 leaders of the provinces and territories in this country, as well as all of the law enforcement community. That continued even as we saw it make its way through to the Senate. It's now in the Senate. David Eby's government continued to lobby for its quick passage even while it was being studied in the Senate.
I think it's important, in terms of the list you're mentioning, to also underscore—and you as a former prosecutor will know this—that when it comes to setting in place the structure and the architecture, that's the Criminal Code and that's for federal parliamentarians. When it comes to the administration of justice and things like bail enforcement, that's the responsibility of the provinces, pursuant to the administration of justice under the constitutional division of powers.
What we've seen is that we've put money in place, including $330 million for guns and gangs enforcement, that is helping provinces do exactly that. There's some complementarity there, but in terms of my willingness to explore other options for keeping communities safe, as a guy who represents a riding in Toronto that has seen violence, particularly on the TTC, I am committed to that. It is my fundamental duty to keep Canadians safe.
Bill C-48 goes in a direction that will do just that. It's an important piece of legislation that got all-party support, which is a good thing. I think there are more areas of collaboration, and I'm willing to collaborate in those areas.
425 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:52:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much for that.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:54:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I figured that my time would be up. Thanks.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:54:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You were out of time for sure, Mr. Brock.
I'm now going to go to Mr. Housefather for four minutes.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:54:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Congratulations on your appointment, Minister.
And congratulations to you too, Madam Chair, on your new role.
It is indeed a pleasure to be back once again on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because it's one of my favourite House of Commons committees.
Mr. Minister, I want to ask you about an amendment that was made by the Senate. You voiced some discomfort with a couple of the Senate amendments or mentioned some issues with respect to them.
I have a concern about one that was made with respect to the variation or revocation of applications in proposed subsection 486.51(3). I don't expect you to remember the bill perfectly by heart, so I'll read it to you, mention what I'm concerned about and ask if you might react to it, so that we will be governed in our deliberations accordingly.
It now states:
If the court is of the opinion that varying or revoking the order that is the subject of an application referred to in subsection (2) may affect the privacy interests of any person other than the accused who is the subject of any order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that person, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the order should be varied or revoked.
My concern is in reference to “the privacy interests of any person other than the accused”, which was added by the Senate. It seems to me to imply that the accused actually has some privacy interests that are being ignored by this section, but then some accused and their lawyer may argue they have privacy interests in other sections throughout the act. I don't think we want to recognize that the accused has a privacy interest in these matters.
Could you guide us on that and let me know if you or the officials share that concern about this language being introduced?
338 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
