Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 1263
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think, MP Vidal, that it's frustrating to indigenous communities who have been.... Again, when I spoke about things that we take for granted, certainly people who look like me take policing for granted.
There's an element in here that's important to highlight. My department deals with a sort of companion aspect of policing as an essential service, as a relationship partner with Public Safety. The bulk of that will be led by Minister Bill Blair, firstly as he continues to fund the first nations policing program, but then to expand it and do the consultation work necessary to define and reflect the needs of communities, whether it's the treaty areas or anywhere across Canada that where that service is needed for the health and safety of communities, and foremost for women and children as a key response to the MMIW calls for justice and the TRC report.
Yes, absolutely, it's frustrating, but there is also an aspect of this where we need that input from communities, to keep working with communities and putting forth a piece of legislation that will recognize that essential service.
The part that I'm responsible for, to be clear and—
Jo-Anne Wemmers
View Jo-Anne Wemmers Profile
Jo-Anne Wemmers
2021-06-08 12:13
It's an honour to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
When we look at the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, clearly it represents a step forward, but several issues remain that need to be addressed. Canada has a responsibility to ensure that the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which Canada was one of the countries that took the initiative to develop, is respected across the country. Unfortunately, currently, Canada does not meet these minimum standards and norms for victims of crime.
Key topics that are included in the UN declaration, such as state compensation, victim support and restorative justice, are not included in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
For example, according to articles 12 and 13 of the UN declaration, states should create compensation programs for victims of violence. Currently in Canada, not all provinces and territories have such programs. This inequality needs to be addressed in order to ensure that all Canadians have access to the minimum standards identified by the United Nations. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be modified to include these basic rights for victims. Specifically, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be amended to include access to victim support, restorative justice and state compensation programs.
Second, regarding restitution, in order to execute a restitution order, section 17 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights refers victims to civil tribunals. However, civil judgment does not really help victims. We know this. This has been well known for 20 or 30 years in the research. Recognizing the inadequacy of such a provision, other countries have made the state, rather than victims, responsible for enforcing restitution orders, treating them like they treat fines. The state already has mechanisms in place to ensure that fines are paid, and these systems can be used to retrieve restitution owed by offenders. I address this in the research brief, “Restitution in the context of criminal justice”, which I attached with my documents yesterday. It's available in both English and French.
Third, regarding language, article 3 of the UN declaration states that all victims should have access to rights and services, regardless of their language, race, gender, age and so on. Canada is officially bilingual, not to mention the many other languages, indigenous languages, found in Canada. The criminal justice system is set up to accommodate the linguistic needs of the accused, of offenders; however, it does not address the linguistic needs of victims.
An example that is not uncommon, unfortunately, in Montreal courts is when one party—the offender, for example—speaks one language, such as English, and the victim speaks another, such as French. The accused has access to translation services, and rightly so, but the victim does not, and a victim who wishes to attend the trial and follow the case cannot even ask a bilingual friend to accompany them and to help translate. As they are members of the public, they sit in the public tribunal and no one is allowed to speak during the trial.
This problem is not limited to the courtroom either. Services such as compensation programs often have unilingual websites, forms, and so on. Specifically, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be amended to include equal access to rights and services regardless of language, race, gender, age and so on.
Fourth, the rights in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights are non-enforceable rights. I was quite happy to see the senator raise this issue, as well. This means that when victims' rights are not respected, they have no recourse. What good are rights if they are not enforceable? Victims are powerless against an omnipotent state that has the power to force them to testify as well as the power to shut them out. We need to recognize that crime is a violation of victims' human rights, as well as an offence against society.
Treating victims with dignity and respect means recognizing them as persons before the law, with rights and with recourse. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights must be amended to include an enforcement mechanism; otherwise, to quote Ontario judge Gerald Day, one can only conclude “that the Legislature did not intend for the Victims Bill of Rights to provide rights to the victims”. I quote this from the decision in Vanscoy and Even in 1999, when two victims brought this case to the government when their rights, as stated in the Ontario Victims Bill of Rights, were not respected.
I have attached a copy of chapter 7 of my book, Victimology: A Canadian Perspective, in which I discuss victims' rights in Canada and abroad.
Specifically, articles 27, 28 and 29 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be deleted. They should be replaced with an enforcement mechanism.
Modify the language of the Victims Bill of Rights, including article 20, to acknowledge the victims' human rights and recognize that crime constitutes a violation of their human rights.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
How did Canadian authorities respond to the practice?
Peter M. German, Q.C.
View Peter M. German, Q.C. Profile
Peter M. German, Q.C.
2021-06-07 21:04
The issue of enforcement was raised, most specifically in our second report, in that it was very clear that the RCMP was under-resourced, having—
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
All right. What steps would be taken to ensure that a regulator would be able to access the folks most affected by this problem—teenage girls and young adult women—seeing as they're not likely to be able to navigate complex bureaucracy?
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
What enforcement mechanisms is this supposed regulator going to use?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, I'm happy to discuss the objectives of the legislation with you. I would be happy to come back to discuss the details of the legislation once it is tabled.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
What about cases in which the victim is Canadian but the site isn't necessarily Canadian?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm happy to repeat, but that's the answer I gave to your colleague, Madame Gaudreau.
The purpose of the legislation is that whether the company is Canadian, its servers are in Canada, its headquarters are in Canada or it's registered in Canada or elsewhere, if it's broadcasting images or videos in Canada, then the legislation will apply to that company.
Mr. Chair and Madam Clerk, I am being told that I must connect to the House of Commons debate five minutes before noon, which would have been a minute ago, I suppose. I'm in your hands, but I must get ready for another debate in the House of Commons.
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:25
No worries.
The committee is dealing with a Canadian-controlled private corporation, a CCPC, which is a private commercial organization based in and operating with headquarters located in Canada. It is a Canadian company. We know this, and that's fine. Commercial organizations in Canada are bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. PIPEDA outlines the rules and remedies, including the fines and other penalties, for corporations that fail to abide by the provisions specified in the act.
Beyond the corporate level, we also have the Criminal Code of Canada, which outlines the criminal offences and punishments for committing such offences. We have these. We need to apply them. Everyone is bound by the Criminal Code of Canada.
Why, then, do we need additional regulations? Why do we need more oversight when we have not yet tried to simply apply the law we already have? We have these laws. We can use them, so let's use them. That's what they're for. What's the point in even having these statutes if you're not going to apply them when they're needed? What are we doing here?
We're here because a portion of those involved have decided to conflate the issue of corporate negligence with highly sexualized and emotive criminal activity—read again, child rape porn testimony. It elicits an emotional response—the sympathetic nervous system and all of that. It doesn't matter. This is about a corporation and user-generated content. It does not matter what is depicted in the content as much as it matters that the content, whatever it may be, should not have gotten past the corporation's screening system before being made live on the site. When the issue was brought to its attention, the corporation responded inadequately at first, so we need corporate law. We need to look at liability and feasibility standards.
Why has this become a forum for grandstanding religious ideologies? I'm sure you've all heard about Exodus Cry in the news, if you've been following it. Exodus Cry is a fundamental Christian organization founded on religious ideologies stemming from the United States. Why is it relevant to a question of corporate liability in Canada? It isn't. It doesn't make any sense.
Why are we arguing about exploitation? Why are we discussing mass censorship? Is that not a massive overreaction to a simple corporate negligence question? It seems glaringly obvious to me, so why are we not discussing reasonable options for encouraging corporations to better serve their users?
Also, I have some opinions about the genderedness of this. You can read about it in my notes.
When it comes down to it, you can't eliminate sex. We're humans, and there is always going to be a demand for sex. You can't eliminate sex work because the demand exists. You can't eliminate extramarital sex or porn or masturbation or demand for sexual services, but sexual assault is illegal, even when that person is your spouse. We need it to be that way. We want to protect people. If you're saying you can do certain things only within the context of marriage, you're setting yourself up for failure. It's true.
Yes, I said “masturbation” in a hearing. Oh my God.
You cannot eliminate base human desires, so you can't eliminate sex. That would be silly. It's okay to not like these things, and just because you don't like a thing or you feel that a thing is not for you, it doesn't mean it's inherently evil and should be eliminated. It doesn't work that way. It's not about and should not be about pornography or the actual content of online material here. This is about creating reasonable laws that work for Canada, Canadian corporations and everyone residing within Canada. We don't need new regulations; we don't need a new regulator, and we don't need online censorship. We need to use the tools we already have, which were designed for a reason. Why be redundant?
That is my diatribe.
Thank you for having me. I will take any questions you throw at me.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 12:30
Thanks, Chair.
Melissa, thanks for your testimony and for being here today.
I share your perspective that it is crucial to distinguish between the hosting and distribution of child sexual abuse material and of material and images that don't have the explicit consent of the people depicted in them.
I think you'd agree—or let me know if you do—that people have a right to own their own images and content that include them, and also the right to withdraw that if they so choose. This is the thing that I think all of us are grappling with—your very strong point about the Criminal Code already being in place and the laws and the regulations that already exist to provide these protections for children and for others who do not give their consent.
What do you make of what the actual problem is, then? What is the enforcement issue, the lack of enforcement and the lack of application of the existing law?
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:31
I think the current issue is that perhaps the penalties that currently exist in PIPEDA are not strong enough to deter corporations. I'm not saying to put in new regulations—I'm not saying that—but when you're going to do the digital charter implementation act and you're discussing things like Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, it's important to remember that.
I think there is room for improvement. Because we've found that financial penalties don't really seem to impact companies that make a lot of money, fines could instead be based on percentages. The key here is that we need to not have increased regulation. If what we're trying to do is in fact what we say we're trying to do, which is to reduce human trafficking and harm to young people, additional regulations are not going to help that.
Did I answer your question?
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 12:35
I think this is probably what's mind-boggling to many of us on this committee and probably many Canadians listening. A colleague said to me recently that, somehow, organizations like ag societies and school fundraisers and Legions are put through mountains of paperwork and administration to, say, play certain songs or use certain visual material. Then there are also online sites, say, that sell cannabis or alcohol, or host gambling, and in those two cases the country seems fairly effective at having a set of laws and bylaws and policies and regulations for these organizations [Technical difficulty—Editor] seem to manage to enforce and crack down on all of that being done illegally.
Results: 31 - 45 of 1263 | Page: 3 of 85

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data