SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Frank Caputo

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)
  • 04:06:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you. My understanding from experience is that the publication ban occurs by operation of law. The question I think we have to grapple with as a committee is this: Do we want something within the amendments that says there is a requirement to let victims know of their right to set aside the ban? That's the fundamental question here. We have a number of amendments here. I'm not sure, just gauging the people in the room here, whether that is palatable, because we would need a subamendment or we would just cut to the chase and say, no, that's just not something we're open to. I know that might not be conventional, but that's my sense.
122 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo
  • 04:19:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we have to remember what legal advice is. Legal advice is advising somebody about potential courses of action and the pros and cons of those courses of action and advising someone as to what the person may wish to do. In my view, this provision actually says, “This is the information you must provide.” It doesn't encourage or discourage a course of action. It doesn't say, “You should apply to set aside the publication ban” or “You should not apply to set aside a publication ban ” or “These are the things you should consider.” That, to me, would be legal advice. For instance—I'm trying to recall now—we used to have to send out letters under the B.C. Victims of Crime Act that would say, “This is a victim impact statement,” and it wouldn't be uncommon to say what can go into a victim impact statement. For instance, a victim impact statement cannot have information as to the proposed punishment or what the victim believes should be a punishment. That is objective. You can't do that. This is the form a victim impact statement can take. Suggesting whether you should submit one or how you should express yourself is getting into advice. I think that this is the exact same thing. I could see it taking the form of a letter saying, “This is what a publication ban is. These are your rights as a victim under the publication ban. This is what you can do. This is what you can't do. Do as you wish. Get legal advice if you wish.” Thank you.
292 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo
  • 05:17:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I believe unanimous consent is required to push the meeting beyond its time. I would love to stay here, but both Mr. Brock and I do have flights. It's rather unfortunate that we are here. This has been said so many times. The decision came down on October 29, 2022, and here we are rushing. We'll have to pick it up at some other time.
74 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo
  • 05:18:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'll just be clear that I would like to stay but I cannot.
14 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo
  • 05:22:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes.
1 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo
  • 05:23:16 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
May I just add, please, Madam Chair?
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Frank Caputo
  • 05:25:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'm just going to echo the sentiments, again, of Mr. Brock. I think that if we were to go and look.... Candidly—it may not surprise people around the table—I'm a bit of a nerd. I still read a lot of case law because I find it interesting, and I also want to know what we're dealing with, especially in areas like this. When it comes to B.C. Court of Appeal decisions and B.C. Supreme Court decisions, for instance, I frequently read the decisions. I can tell you that it is not uncommon but actually very common to have sentences for offences under subsection 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code—which is the possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation materials—be under two years or for the cases to not be proceeded with by indictment, and that sometimes is done by consent. When we look at this and consider whether or not that person should be registered, at the end of the day, not only has somebody victimized that child, but that child has been revictimized, in the case of possession of those materials, time after time after time. Research tells us that the person who has done so is at an elevated risk, a substantial risk—not even just a 50%-plus, but a substantial and elevated risk—to offend. Somebody who is seeking out that material is seeking it out for a reason, and in my view, there is often an escalation of what somebody does. Usually the offending behaviour does not decrease, but it will increase. I don't know how we, as a committee and as parliamentarians, wouldn't want to recommend the inclusion of such people, rather than restricting them because so few people will be caught by this. I'm mindful of the presumption, but this isn't a matter of presumption. We in Parliament should be speaking and saying that those who are at a heightened risk or who are even at risk to offend against children will not be presumptive; they will be included on the registry.
359 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border