SoVote

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

05:21:07 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Minister. I too would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Minister of Justice. The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be pleased to work with you. As you mentioned, we are at the pre-study phase with Bill S‑12, because it has not yet been referred back to us. I agree that it's a good idea to proceed in this manner. You were right to point out that the end-of-the-month deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada would mean that it would no longer be possible to add sex offenders to the national sex offender registry, and that this would be problematic. We agree. However, can you explain why the bill was only introduced in the Senate on April 26, 2023, when the Supreme Court decision dates back to October 28, 2022, almost a year ago? That means there were six months between the time the Supreme Court ruled that the act had to be amended and the introduction of the bill. Can you explain why it took so long, Minister?

195 words

S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

05:23:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense to me. I'm sure that all kinds of consultations are needed before a bill like this one can be drafted. However, while everyone around the table agrees that it was urgent, it took six months to get around to introducing the bill. The Senate nevertheless managed to do some relatively rapid work on it because the bill was adopted on third reading on June 22, just prior to the summer recess. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights could have been consulted during the summer to speed things up, but it wasn't. My understanding is that it had to go through the House and that this was complicated. What I'm personally most unhappy about is how long it took for the bill to be introduced after everyone across Canada had become aware of the fact that there was an urgent situation. The Supreme Court told us what had to be changed, but six months were spent on consultations. Your explanation strikes me as credible, but I'm not sure that it's enough. In terms of credibility, I think the government was negligent for the first six months. And now, there's a push for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speed things up and set things right. I'm displeased about it and just wanted to point that out to you. Having said that, as I have approximately two minutes left, I'd like you to explain something to me. You mentioned in your opening address that there might be a conflict of interest if Crown attorneys were to be required, as stated in the bill, to inform victims of the consequences of a publication ban and of any failure to comply with the ban. I find this conflict of interest rather surprising and wonder whether you could take a minute to explain to me why this is a conflict of interest. Isn't the Crown attorney supposed to be making sure that everyone understands what's going on? I had always understood that the Crown attorney had nothing to prove. That being the case, I don't understand why there would be a conflict of interest. I'll let you explain it and even perhaps suggest an alternative solution.

389 words

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

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

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

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

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

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

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

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