JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 3:30 p.m. this day, in Room 268, The Valour Building, the Chair, Mike Wallace, presiding.

It was agreed, — That the Fifth Report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which reads as follows, be concurred in:

Your Subcommittee met on Thursday, November 20, 2104, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

1. That the Committee examine the The Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-15 on Thursday, November 27, 2014 and that the first hour of the meeting be dedicated to the Minister and the second hour to department officials.

2. That the Committee dedicates its meeting on Tuesday, December 2, 2014 to proceed to examine Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators); and, if needed, concludes the clause-by clause study of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

3. That the Committee examine Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations, on Thursday, December 6, 2014.

4. That the Committee dedicate the first hour of its meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 to proceed to examine Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations; and the second hour to its clause-by clause study.

Carole Morency and Pamela Arnott answered questions.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

“and respect, including respect for their dignity;”

The question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

“2.1 The provisions of this Act apply in respect of any Canadian who has been the victim of an act or omission committed outside Canada that, if it had been committed in Canada, would have constituted a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, or murder, and, as such, that victim is entitled to any lawfully available domestic rights established under this Act.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Sean Casey appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Bob Dechert, Robert Goguen, Peter Goldring, Mark Strahl, David Wilks — 5; NAYS: Françoise Boivin, Sean Casey, Ève Péclet, Philip Toone — 4.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 2 with the following:

“of the victim's death cohabiting with them, having so cohabited”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 3 the following:

“(f) any other individual who a court has, on application by that individual, determined to be an appropriate individual to exercise the victim’s rights on behalf of the victim.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“6. Every victim has the right to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 3 with the following:

“them as a victim, including relevant restorative justice, social services, family services and mental health programs as recommended by a needs assessment performed by an appropriate professional; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

“6.1 Every victim has the right to receive, free of charge, a written statement summarizing all of their rights under this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

“6.1 (1) Every victim has the right to receive, free of charge, a written statement summarizing all of their rights under this Act.

(2) Every law enforcement agency investigating an offence and every prosecutor involved in the prosecution of an offence must, at the time of initial contact with a victim, during the follow-up investigation or as soon as is considered appropriate by the investigating officers or the prosecutor, as the case may be, provide or make readily available to the victim, free of charge, a written statement summarizing all of the victim’s rights under this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“7. Every victim has the right to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

“tion into the offence, not including investigative materials; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“8. Every victim has the right to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 4 with the following:

“ities in the criminal justice system at every stage of the criminal justice process, including parole hearings.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“ABORIGINAL VICTIMS

17.1 The prosecutor or judge of any criminal justice matter that involves an Aboriginal victim or an Aboriginal community must consider recourse to a restorative justice program or other restorative justice component.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

“under this Act only if they are a Canadian citizen or a permanent”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

“(3) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not prevent a prosecutor from making an application, in the course of proceedings, on behalf of a victim who is not present in Canada.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 6 the following:

“(c.1) infringe upon the right to privacy of any person;”

Debate arose thereon.

Françoise Boivin moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “infringe” the following: “in an unreasonable manner”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 6 the following:

“(c.1) impose an unreasonable financial burden on a provincial criminal justice system;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 8 with the following:

“27. Subject to section 20,

(a) nothing in this Act is to be construed as granting any victim or individual acting on behalf of a victim the status as a party or intervenor in any proceedings; and

(b) victims have a general right to observe proceedings related to the accused and the offender, as the case may be, subject to the discretion of the court or administrative decision-maker to exclude them if it is necessary for the proper administration of justice.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“granting to, or removing from, any victim or any individual acting on behalf of a victim the status of party,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

“REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

30. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an annual report for the previous year on the operation of this Act that contains the following information:

(a) the number of restitution orders made under section 16;

(b) the number of requests for information made under sections 7 and 8; and

(c) the number of complaints filed under sections 25 and 26.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 2, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On new Clause 2.1,

“PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW

2.1 Two years after section 2 comes into force, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights enacted by that section.”

Robert Goguen moved, — That the amendment be amended by:

a) replacing the word “Two” with the word “Five”, and;

b) deleting the words “of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

The question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 14,

(a) replacing line 33 on page 12 with the following:

“14. Subsections 486.1(1) to (3) of the”

(b) replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 13 with the following:

“(2.1) An application referred to in subsection (1) or (2) may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings or, if that judge or justice has not been determined, to any judge or justice having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place.”

The question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following two (2) amendments which are therefore also adopted:

(a) replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 13 with the following:

“15. Section 486.2 of the Act is replaced by the following:”

(b) replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 14 with the following:

“(2.1) An application referred to in subsection (1) or (2) may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings or, if that judge or justice has not been determined, to any judge or justice having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place.”

That Bill C-32, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 16 with the following:

“proceedings to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings or, if that judge or justice has not been determined, to any judge or justice having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place.”

Clause 14, as amended, carried.

On Clause 15,

“(c.1) in the case of an Aboriginal victim, witness or accused, the particular circumstances of that individual;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 15, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 1.

Clause 16, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 17,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

The Chair ruled that the following three (3) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 17, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 40 on page 17.

That Bill C-32, in Clause 17, be amended by deleting lines 41 to 43 on page 17.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 17 with the following:

“accused, the judge or justice may, on an application — of a witness or of the prosecutor in respect of a witness — that establishes that the disclosure of the witness’ identity could endanger their life, make an order direct-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 17 with the following:

“accused, the judge or justice may, on an application — of a witness or of the prosecutor in respect of a witness — that establishes that the disclosure of the witness’ identity could endanger their life or the life of anyone known to the witness, make an order direct-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 17 the following:

“(3.1) For greater certainty, the paramount consideration to guide the court under this section is whether the disclosure of the witness’ identity could endanger their life, with the factors set out in subsection (3), in all cases, being subordinate to this consideration.”

Debate arose thereon.

Françoise Boivin moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “or their relatives'” after the word “life”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 17 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.

Clause 18 carried.

On Clause 19,

“(a) an offence under section 423.1, 467.11, 467.111,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 19, as amended, carried.

Clause 20 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 21,

“an included offence — and the prosecutor and the accused will submit a joint submission on sentencing, the court shall, after”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 21 carried.

On Clause 22,

“statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence. In considering the statement, the court or Review Board should consider, in the case of an Aboriginal victim or offender, the individual's particular circumstances.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 22 carried.

On new Clause 22.1,

“22.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 717:

717.01 If alternative measures are used under section 717 in respect of a person alleged to have committed an offence, the victim of the offence must, on request, be provided with the terms and conditions of those measures.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

On Clause 23,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Clause 23 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.

Clause 24 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 25,

“writing, using Form 34.2 in Part XXVIII,in accordance with the procedures established by a program designated for that purpose by the lieutenant governor in council of the province in which the court is exercising its jurisdiction.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also adopted:

“writing, using Form 34.3 in Part XXVIII, in accordance with the procedures established by a program designated for that purpose by the lieutenant governor in council of the province in which the court is exercising its jurisdiction.”

Clause 25, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 26,

“the court may consider any statement made by”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 26, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 27 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 28 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 25 with the following:

“order under section 738 or 739, unless the court is of the opinion that such an order would impede the successful reintegration of the offender into society.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

Clause 29 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 30,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

“province may, by order, designate any”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 30, as amended, carried.

At 5:30 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.