44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023
- 04:07:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'd like to comment on the amendment, first, Madam Chair, if I may.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:07:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:07:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:07:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Under the terms of the motion that this committee passed, I do believe that I have a right to speak to PV-4 to explain the reasons that it is being put forward before it's summarily defeated.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:08:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Just a moment, Mr. Fortin.
Madame May, you didn't put up your hand, so I didn't know, and it's not necessary by the rules, so it's up to you. Do let us know if you want to speak. I'll let Monsieur Fortin....
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:08:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If Ms. May wants to go first, that's fine. It's up to you, Madam Chair. I'm ready to go, but I have no objections if Ms. May wants to go first.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:08:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Ms. May, would you like to say a few words on it before Monsieur Fortin speaks?
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:08:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes. I'm very surprised that the last amendment was defeated, because I did think that the committee was aware—as I thought the minister was aware—that Bill S-12 will need amendments in order to meet the goals of ensuring that victims are not subject to publication bans without their knowledge. Therefore, the amendment again here is attempting to ensure, as are others before you, that the rights of the victims are reflected in their advance knowledge of, and permission for, publication bans apply to them.
I am disappointed. I appreciate very much the support from a number of colleagues around the room, but I don't understand why we wouldn't want to ensure that these amendments that go to the issues raised by My Voice, My Choice are all carried.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:09:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Mr. Fortin, you may go ahead now.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:09:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The only reason I voted against the previous amendment was the language it used, since obtaining written consent from a victim is nearly impossible.
The language in PV‑4 is also problematic, specifically where it says “if any witness…or the victim wishes to be the subject of an order”. The subject of an order is not the victim—rather, it's the victim's identity. The disclosure of the facts and all the evidence submitted during the trial are the subject of an order, not the victim themselves.
The English and French versions have the same problem. In certain places in the Criminal Code, it's referred to properly, but here, the language is problematic:
“the victim wishes to be the subject of an order”.
No victim who is asked whether they wish to be the subject of an order would say yes.
I think we just need to reword it to indicate that the judge must inquire whether the victim wishes to have their identity be the subject of an order, say, or whether the victim wishes to have all the proceedings and facts revealed during the trial be the subject of an order. As I said, the subject of an order is not the victim.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
I will now ask the question. Shall Amendment PV-4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Would you like a vote on that?
Some hon. members: Yes.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:11:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you. Amendment PV-4 is defeated.
Next I have amendment G-1. Would the member please move the amendment?
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:12:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I so move.
The Chair: It is moved.
Shall amendment G-1 carry?
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:12:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, I want to speak in opposition to G‑1.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:12:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:12:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
As I see it, there's a problem with G‑1, and the committee heard a lot about it from witnesses: Does it put the Crown prosecutor in a conflict of interest situation when explaining the ins and outs of the order to the victim? Some say no, and others say yes. Personally, I think the Crown prosecutor can't simply inform the victim that a publication ban was issued and say nothing else. If the victim asks what that means, the prosecutor shouldn't be able to tell the victim that they have to look it up and figure it out on their own, because the Crown prosecutor's job is just to inform the victim that a publication ban is in place.
I don't think the amendment says enough. I don't think it's respectful of victims and their rights. The Crown prosecutor should explain to victims what a publication ban is or designate someone to make sure the victim is properly informed. I don't think it's right to give victims so little consideration that they are simply informed in passing of the order's existence with no explanation as to what that means, being told they have to find the information themselves. I don't think the language is comprehensive enough.
I think Bill S‑12 uses better language that is more respectful of the rights of victims and witnesses.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:13:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I tend to agree with Mr. Fortin. What we've heard in our testimony around victims of crime and around this legislation is that victims are feeling left out, in the dark, and they are crying out for more information. I will note that My Voice, My Choice, who are people with lived experience, advocated that this provision should remain in the bill, so I will be opposing this amendment. It is important that as much relevant information as possible be disclosed to the victims.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:14:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
