44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023
- 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
- 05:56:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I would say to you, Mr. Housefather, it's duly noted. I think it's important to take a close reading of the legislation.
I share a concern if there's any ambiguity insofar as the target of this regime under Bill S-12 is meant to be the victims or witnesses, but to the exclusion of the accused. We are not concerned with the privacy interests of the accused here. Any Senate amendment that would purport to raise that issue is unnecessary ambiguity that doesn't conform to the objectives of the bill.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:57:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
This is just my feeling having read it. I think it creates ambiguity and doubt, because we're not talking in the rest of the bill about the privacy interests of the accused, but there we're saying this is irrespective of that. It seems to imply that there is a privacy interest.
Thank you. I'm sure my colleagues and I can discuss that among ourselves.
I appreciated Mr. Garrison's previous question asking for some numbers. I'm sure you don't have this number, but I was wondering, on average, how many people are transferred to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act to serve their sentences for a criminal offence committed abroad.
That's mentioned in this act. Do we have any idea how many people this affects, those who have committed designated offences, including those in section 490.011 of the code?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:58:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
My officials advise me that we do not have that data. We could ask the Minister of Public Safety if it might be available from him or his department, and we could endeavour to provide that to you, if that material is available.
I'll say anecdotally that the provisions that relate to sex offenders on the registry and potential travel of 14 days to a different location have been very well received by our American counterparts. Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas have indicated that they are very appreciative of this effort to keep our continent safer from sexual predators.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:58:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I totally agree.
I just want to end by saying I very much appreciated your answer to Mr. Brock before about your commitment to keeping people safe, children safe and victims safe, because I think that's our commitment in all parties. I appreciate what you said.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:59:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, everyone.
That concludes our time with you, Minister. Thank you very much for sharing the information, knowledge and expertise you have with respect to this bill.
We will adjourn, but before we do, at the next meeting, the officials will be returning for the first hour, and the second hour will be with witnesses.
Thank you very much. Have a pleasant evening, everyone.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
