44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023
- 03:46:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Taylor, I was somewhat confused by the language in this particular amendment because, to your point, the code already provides necessary direction to the court when dealing with witnesses and victims under the age of 18. The order is actually mandatory; it's not discretionary. In the way this is drafted, the word “may” provides a discretionary exercise, which kind of defeats the original purpose for which the code was drafted.
Would you agree?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I can move that, Madam Chair.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:14:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I too am leaning towards opposing this, Madam Chair, unless I can be persuaded by the Liberals as to the justification behind the amendment.
I also agree with Monsieur Fortin. Our job as legislators is to be entirely clear when we are amending or passing legislation, and the way that this is drafted is so vague. It is rife for litigation. It does not indicate in any respect, with any specifics, how a prosecutor is supposed to discharge that particular onus.
I will add very briefly that I disagree with our Attorney General and some of the other witnesses, who opined that this is a dangerous area in terms of how prosecutors are conducting their business in terms of their relationship and discussions with victims.
I consulted with my colleague Mr. Caputo. I can recall, for the years that I was prosecuting where I was dealing with very sensitive matters and dealing with victims, that I had to supply those victims with a myriad of informational points with respect to the process. I view this as a process-driven avenue for a prosecutor to share that particular information.
I think it's incumbent that we strengthen the language, not weaken it and not make it so vague that it's unenforceable.
Thank you.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:21:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want everyone at this committee to remark not only on the evidence that we've heard from victims and victim groups but also from some members of this particular committee who have been around for a couple of years.
We've heard from a number of victims over the course of my tenure as a new parliamentarian, and the message was extremely consistent from the victims: It was that they feel that the Crown attorneys and the criminal justice system are completely unresponsive to their needs.
They want information. They want to feel part of the litigation. They want to feel part of the team. It's for that very reason that I'm asking the Liberal bench to consider amending this to strengthen it or to simply to delete it. The victims want to have information shared by the Crown. They don't want a Crown attorney to simply say that the order has been made but that they can't say anything because they'll put themselves in a conflict of interest.
Crowns have an obligation to the community. They are public servants. They are ministers of justice, but they cannot and should not exclude witnesses in discussing pertinent and really relevant information, which this currently is.
Thank you.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:08:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wholeheartedly endorse my colleague's comments. I wish to put on the record as well that the only way I see this actually having any impact—and this is currently what happens routinely before the court—is that the privacy interests of the accused generally will occur in terms of publication bans when identifying the accused might compromise the integrity and privacy interests of the victim.
In other words, if a victim has been sexually abused by the accused in a familial relationship, it's automatic that in those situations the privacy interests of the accused have application and, in those situations, their name plus the name of the victim would be subject to a publication ban. This particular amendment does not speak to that, and I think for broader reasons it should be defeated.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:18:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, thank you. I just wanted to add something for discussion.
I believe we heard some evidence—perhaps Matthew Taylor or Ms. Wells can weigh in on this—that in practical terms, the vast number of convictions of sex offenders involving children under the age of 18 proceed by summary conviction. As the Criminal Code is set out, if proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 18 months. In my view, as a former prosecutor, whether it's a history of sexual offending or a one-off involving a child, whether it's a judge with or without expert evidence from the defence or from the Crown.... In my respectful view, a low risk is still a risk, and that's the same language that came from the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let's take a look of the identity of the justices who were part of that dissenting opinion. We have the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have Justice Moldaver, who is now retired. Matthew Taylor and Joanna Wells can confirm—because I know my colleague Mr. Caputo can certainly confirm this—that he was considered the expert. He was the dean insofar as criminal jurisprudence was concerned.
I agree it's dissenting and it's not binding, but I take that language very seriously. This particular bill broadens that net to ensure that all of those offenders, whether their cases proceed by indictment as contemplated by Bill S-12 or by summary conviction, will be captured by the Sex Offender Information Registration Act
Am I correct, Mr. Taylor?
274 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:26:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, could I get clarification? Are we continuing beyond 5:30 p.m.?
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:26:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I can speak on it.
CPC-6 is largely CPC-5 language. The rationale behind it from both my interventions and Mr. Caputo's interventions still applies. The difference between CPC-6 and CPC-5 is that it doesn't have the addition of an offence involving a person with a disability.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
