JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 13, 1999

• 0915

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)): The Chairman is due to arrive in a few minutes. So as not to waste any time, I think we should begin now.

I'd like to start by welcoming...

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I realize that all committee members aren't here today, but I do want to state for the record how surprised I was to learn yesterday evening that the committee's report had been made public, even though that wasn't supposed to happen. Since every one isn't here, I'd like us to discuss at our next meeting how it came to pass that I confidential report was leaked to the press. I'd like us to take note of this for our next meeting. I think we need to take a careful look at how our reports, which are supposed to remain confidential until they are tabled in the House, end up being leaked. I gather this is the work of certain members of this committee, because no one else had a copy of the report.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Thank you. Your point of order is duly noted.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Chair, just for the record, I was just as shocked as anybody. In fact I had a reporter phone me in the office last night at 9 o'clock, and I refused to talk to him. Then when I went home and turned on the news, I saw the report.

But this is nothing new. We know our original victims' rights report was leaked. This has been going on for some time, and I'm sure everybody's aware it's been brought up in the House on a number of occasions. I see no reason it shouldn't be brought up again. I mean, what are we even bothering for? This is really getting....

I'm just as shocked as you are.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): So noted. In any event, it is the prerogative of members of this committee to discuss the matter at our next meeting. Your comments have been duly noted.

I'd like to jump right in and thank Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers, Ms. Esther Enkin and Mr. Daniel Henry for coming here this morning. The Chairman should be relieving me in a few minutes. I'm only sitting in for him. Welcome to all of you and please proceed with your presentations.

[English]

Mr. Daniel Henry (Senior Legal Counsel, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you very much,

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman.

I see that only three committee members are present. Is that enough for a quorum and do...

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Yes, we do have a quorum to hear evidence. Moreover, your submission will soon be available in both official languages and will be distributed to all committee members.

Mr. Daniel Henry: I believe it is already available in both official languages.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Is that a fact?

Mr. Daniel Henry: Yes.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Then, thank you very much. I will be circulated to all members today.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Good. In that case, I'll begin.

[English]

I am a lawyer with CBC. With me today is Esther Enkin, who's the chief journalist of CBC English Radio. We're here representing CBC and Radio-Canada. We have canvassed across the country for examples of the concerns we will raise. Appended to our brief are many examples from across Canada of the problems we have had to face in giving victims a voice.

Based on the preamble to Bill C-79, we understand the purpose of the amendments is to support the principles that victims and witnesses should be treated with respect and should suffer the least amount of inconvenience, that their views and concerns should be considered, and that information should be provided to victims and witnesses regarding specific decisions that have an impact on them. It is in that vein that we address you.

• 0920

We have two essential points to make. One is that when a victim wants to talk to the media publicly, they should be entitled to do so, as a matter of recognizing their constitutional right to freedom of expression. And they should be able to do so without a court saying no.

That means they have the right to be consulted in advance about the need for the ban, they have the right to ask for or decline the ban and to be advised of that right, and they have the right to waive the protection of an existing ban at any time without having to ask a court for permission to do so, because it's for their benefit. It's to protect their identity, and as adults, they should be capable of saying, “I don't want that ban”.

The second thrust to our presentation is that there is no clear duration to publication bans. They should terminate at some point. A logical point to us is on the death of the individual. The ban is put in place to protect the privacy of the individual. Once a person passes on, they don't have that need for privacy any more. Constitutionally, since a publication ban is a restriction on a constitutional freedom—the right to publish freely—a ban should only be in place for as long as it is necessary. We submit it is clearly not necessary in a circumstance where the person is dead, has passed on.

That might seem self-evident. Who would prosecute you for publishing the fact that a person, when they were alive, at some point in the past, had a problem of this nature? Well, CBC was prosecuted and CBC was convicted for reporting on not only the fact of what happened—and I'll tell you the fact—but on a coroner's inquest into the death of a person, which reviewed the details of that person's sexual assault and how that led to that person's death.

In the Northwest Territories, a woman was so despondent over her sexual assault that after testifying at a preliminary inquiry, she went to town—she lived in Cambridge Bay and went to Yellowknife—tried to get help and couldn't get it. She went to a reporter because she wanted to talk, but the reporter wasn't home. She got drunk, was picked up by the RCMP and put in the holding cell of the RCMP to sleep it off, and was unsupervised to the point that she was able to commit suicide there in police custody.

That was a very important event, and it spoke a lot about the problems with the system. CBC felt it had to report on that. The coroner felt it was important enough to call an inquest into her death.

The issue of the ban on publication of her identity after her death was not considered a separate matter. There were many complainants in the same case against one individual. What happens in these cases is the prosecutor asks for a general ban on all complainants, and in this case all witnesses, without considering witness by witness, and there were many, each of whom had their own circumstances. A ban was made by two judges on all complainants. It was only when it got to the trial judge that some consideration was given to individual witnesses, but no consideration was given to the individual circumstances of complainants and whether they wanted it or didn't want it.

So when it came to the trial, there was no discussion of the fact that this complainant, whose testimony from the preliminary was read into the record, was now dead and didn't need the benefit of a ban.

CBC in theory could be faulted, because we were at that trial with a lawyer. Our lawyer was there to fight an application by the Crown to have a completely in camera trial. CBC was successful in having an open trial, but there were bans on publication. They were routine bans on publication, and we didn't fight those bans, because at that point in time we hadn't decided what story to do from the case. We hadn't decided to do the story of this dead lady.

• 0925

After the trial was over—it had gone on for a period of time—we were trying to decide how to report on it, and an editorial decision was made to report on the access to social services that the complainants had. At the end of the story, as you'll see in our brief on page 16, we reported:

For most of Maurice Cloughley's victims the system has worked. Unfortunately for one, C.K.—

—who we named—

—it didn't. Last year, K. flew to Yellowknife on her own to look for help but ended up in a drunk tank dead. K. had hung herself.

For that sentence we were prosecuted by the Crown. At the time we broadcast that, the trial was over and the person had been sentenced. The was no suggestion from the family that we were doing anything we shouldn't be doing. We thought we were doing a public service, because the coroner's inquest was coming up, and we knew it had been publicly announced.

Should we at that point have gone in front of a different judge in a different city to try to get that judge to overturn the ban on the deceased complainant? We felt we didn't have to, because we thought the ban would die a natural death. The Crown took the opposite view. The Crown prosecuted us, and we were ultimately convicted of that.

Then the coroner's inquest took place. We went to the coroner's inquest and wanted a report on it. The Crown told all the reporters, “Don't you dare publish any of the testimony about her sexual assault or we will prosecute you.” CBC, having published the identity before, decided it would publish the identity, because this was all about her story being told. We published fair and accurate reports of the coroner's inquest, and we were charged for having done so. When that charge was dealt with by the court, we were acquitted. When we reported on our acquittal, we were then charged again for having reported the identity of the person in connection with our acquittal.

So we were charged three times in relation to this one event. That third charge was eventually stayed. The first two—the charge we were convicted on and the one we were acquitted on—were appealed. It's gone to the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada has refused leave. Ultimately the courts held that the conviction would be upheld and that we would have to go back for a full trial on the coroner's inquest issue, although we have to determine what arguments to raise at that point.

The issue is still alive. We cannot now identify that person to you. We cannot tell you her story publicly, because to do so, even in this legislative proceeding, would breach the ban according to the ruling. Once a ban is made, it's always in existence, even if the person is dead and has no interest in it. To us that defies logic and needs to be corrected.

We have drafted for the committee amendments to Bill C-79 that would accommodate our concerns. They're on page 6 of our brief, and we can speak to them.

We suggest no order should be made without notice to the complainant, victim, or witness; no order should be made without an opportunity to indicate to the court their wish to obtain or decline the ban; and no order should be made in the event a person declines a ban. Those are the first three.

Also, no order should continue in effect after its protection is waived by the person being protected, after the ban is rescinded by a judge, or after the death of the person whose identity is protected by it.

The cases we've provided you with number 24 in all. They come in a number of categories, such as cases in which the person had media attention without going back to court for an application to lift the ban. Sheldon Kennedy is an example of where someone went to court, but the publication started when there still was a ban in effect. Mount Cashel is an example of people, victims, testifying at a televised inquiry, and then afterwards there were criminal trials. Bans on publication were put into effect, but these people still could testify.

• 0930

We have for you letters of support from four victims. We have not made them part of the record yet, but I would like to distribute them, with the permission of the committee. They are in English, and we can provide them, if you like,

[Translation]

in French, if necessary.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Well, the tradition is that the committee makes a decision to accept or not a unilingual document of any sort. So it's the committee's decision.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Why don't we table it when we have the French version? That's the procedure in this committee.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Okay. Please leave them with us anyway, of course.

Mr. Daniel Henry: I can certainly leave them with you. May I refer to them in the course of discussion?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Sure.

Mr. Daniel Henry: If you look at item number 5 on page 7 of the English version of our brief,

[Translation]

and on page 9, in the French version,

[English]

one of the cases is a story of one of Cesar Lalo's victims, K.S. We've identified him as K.S.

I would ask the chair what to do in this circumstance. He has sent us a letter of support in which he has identified himself. I'm not certain whether the committee would consider it a problem if we provided you with a document where the person tells his story and identifies himself, because to make the document public, arguably, some might feel, would offend the ban that still exists on his identity.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Well, you're asking the question to the wrong person. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what the implications of it would be.

Can anyone advise me on that?

Mr. Daniel Henry: Well, it's an issue. I will leave a copy with the committee, and it will be up to the committee how to circulate it. The person's story is certainly very poignant.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): May I interrupt you just for a second?

[Translation]

I have to wonder if even leaving a copy with the committee is advisable. I don't wish to compromise you in any way.

Mr. Daniel Henry: The law makes an exception in the case of an individual who supplies information where the intent is to keep a person's identity a secret. We are discussing this matter in a legislative context. Therefore, I don't think there is any problem with tabling this document.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): In my humble opinion, since your presentation today is in the public domain, the fact of referring to a document that could be tabled and that could in fact compromise the ban in place could put us all in a rather delicate situation.

Could I make a suggestion?

Mr. Daniel Henry: By all means.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Could you not cover the person's name and signature for now?

Mr. Daniel Henry: The letter cannot be shown. We already have a summary of this individual's views on file. That would be item number 5 on page 7 of the English version, and on page 9 of the French version. This is one illustration of the problem.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): I wouldn't want either of us to fall victim to...

Mr. Daniel Henry: Of course not. That's why I am bringing this up now.

[English]

At this point, the reason for wanting to refer to it is that it is this person's own story, told in this person's own words, with the benefits this person has identified to having gone public with the story. All of his friends know. The community knows, because his story has been published by two television stations. This is not a secret. But there still is a ban on publication of this person's identity.

• 0935

I leave it to you to advise us as to whether you want the benefit of this person's experience. It illustrates for us the problem. This person is a real person.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Can you give me just a couple of seconds? I need to seek advice on this one.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Absolutely.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Here's what I will do. I realize this is not our customary practice and I hope no one will hold me to account.

[English]

What I will do is simply, as chair of this meeting, express formally that we are going to receive your document, but with no publication of this document, pending further consultation.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Chair, I can't see any reason.... What would happen if this person wanted to come themselves and testify before us? Would we say they can't?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Well, no, but that's the whole point that has been raised.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes, I understand that. So I think as long as we don't publish the name, we're okay, as long as the person isn't actually named here publicly.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Yes, but the name is going to be used, I understand, publicly around this table, and this is a public meeting.

Mr. Daniel Henry: No, I'm quite happy to refer to the person by initials, but I do believe the person's story should be available to you. You should have his address so that you will be able to find him and so that you understand this is not a made-up story; this is a real one.

It's one illustration of why it is important for our audience that we are able to do interviews. The honourable member said if the person came to testify, you would obviously permit that, because you would want that testimony. You would want to understand what that person was really about. It's the same in television.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Please go right ahead. I think the situation is clear at this point.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Thank you.

So we have letters. One is from that person. There was a ban on publication of his identity at the beginning. He was a real estate broker; he was happy to have that ban. But eventually, after a number of years, he decided he would go public, and having done so, he was very glad he did so. He now says he would have wanted the right to have or not to have a ban on publication of his identity. He felt that by publicity, he regained his power and control over his life.

He said:

The interview went well. Many clients called to congratulate me on my courage. Co-workers were even more respectful of me and my effort to clean up past atrocities.

He said:

It is one thing to hear about a case involving an anonymous individual, but it is definitely another to see a name or face associated with it to help remove the stigma attached to the story. I am glad that I was able to protect myself for a few years, but am also grateful that I just decided to reveal my identity and to stop perpetuating the myth that the victim is the guilty one. I did not know that I had to ask to have a ban removed. Perhaps if I had known, I would not have put the reporter in that predicament, as having gone through all the legal processes in the first place, the idea of having to go to court to remove a ban would not have been very encouraging.

That's K.S.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): I would ask you to conclude your presentation within the next two or three minutes so that we can move to questions.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Certainly.

• 0940

[English]

The next person is referred to in our brief at page 14 in the English version, item 16. This is one of the most egregious examples. Donna Bouchard is her name. There is now no ban on publication of her name. The reason there isn't is that she had to go to court, hire her own lawyer, and get a ban on her identity overturned, despite the fact that at the time the proceedings first began, she told the prosecutor she did not want the ban. She describes the prosecutor's reaction well in her letter:

This was treated rather dismissively with “Oh, we'll talk about that later.”

She is very unhappy with the court process, very unhappy that she had to hire her own lawyer, and very unhappy that she could not decide herself when to speak about her case. She makes her points very eloquently in her letter.

You have two other examples of support for our position. Another victim by the name of Karen Pietkiewicz was not consulted on the imposition of the ban. She was the whistle-blower on a particular person. Her case is in item number 17 in our brief. She reported on a sexual molestation by a Catholic school teacher who had been assaulting people for 20 years.

She had to hire her own lawyer to overturn the ban. She was very unhappy about the process and very unhappy she was not consulted.

Finally I've given you a letter from Gloria Stefanson, also a victim. She is someone who was consulted, and she was very happy that the ban was not in place for her, given her experience. She feels strongly that a victim should have the choice to have a ban or not.

People ask, why do you need to be able to identify someone? I want to ask Esther Enkin to briefly tell you why we feel we need to identify someone.

Ms. Esther Enkin (Managing Editor and Chief Journalist, Information Programming, CBC English Radio): I'll keep it very brief.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): I just want to know, Mr. MacLeod Rogers, are you going to make a presentation of your own too?

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers (President, Ad IDEM (Advocates in Defence of Expression in the Media)): Absolutely.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Okay.

Ms. Esther Enkin: I'll keep this very brief.

We are asked why we are doing this, and there are two reasons. One is a more broad one, which is the important role news organizations have to play in contributing to civic awareness, to the rights and duties of citizenship. Covering the judicial process is an important part of that. In order to do that, there should be flexibility and openness.

The other part speaks to the credibility of what we report. That's considered so important that there is actually a CBC journalistic policy and standards book that has a section on anonymous program participants. It is our belief that to grant anonymity to a person—which means using their voice in the case of radio, without benefit of a name, or even disguising their voice, which I frown on even more, because it distorts the picture; and in television of course it mean not revealing their face—really does undermine the credibility of the story, of the important issue under discussion.

As I say, it's considered such a serious thing that there's a section devoted to it in the policy book, and editors and reporters cannot grant an interviewee anonymity without speaking to a senior journalistic officer in the organization. I get at least one or two phone calls a day from across the country from my reporters and producers to review whether it fits the criteria.

First of all, there has to be an outweighing social value. I'll read you a little bit of this:

There are occasions when the value of the information (measured in terms of the importance of bringing it to the attention of the public) that can be conveyed by an anonymous interviewee or participant outweighs the objections and the technique may be used.

Of course one of those would be the personal safety or the mental state of the person, and that's taken very seriously. But if that is the case, even then, you might have to protect the person's identity, because they're at risk. That's one side of the equation.

• 0945

The second part also has to be fulfilled: it's so compelling to tell their story, in terms of public issue or public safety, that we'll grant it.

If those conditions don't pertain, we won't do it. The reason we won't do it is we strongly believe that an identity is an important part of the credibility of what a person is saying, and the name and identification have an identity. In fact even when we do grant anonymity, the producer or editor must have and be able to provide the name, address, and bona fides of the person who is appearing anonymously.

So that gives you the context for how important it is for us, in terms of our credibility as broadcasters and journalists, to be able to hold things up to the light and for people to be able to be identified for where they fit into a story and who they are.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Thank you very much.

Is everyone agreed that we should hear from another witness?

A hon. member: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Please go ahead, Mr. MacLeod.

[English]

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. I appreciate the presence of those members who were able to come this morning.

I want to open by apologizing. While I have some knowledge of the French language, it is not sufficiently familiar to my tongue for me to engage in it in front of this group. And unfortunately, in the tight timelines that were available, no French-speaking member of our organization was available either to attend or to help translate our brief.

I have a brief. I wasn't aware until this morning that you wouldn't table it unless it was translated. I would ask that I be permitted, at least myself, to give copies to those members who are here.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacques Saada): Thank you. We'll take care of the translation here, of course, to make sure it's published officially, but in the meantime, please, by all means.

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: Thank you. It might be useful for people to have these available.

Secondly, I apologize because this submission was prepared much too hastily. Our organization is scattered across Canada, and we were unable to present as wide-ranging and developed a brief as we would have liked.

And I am going to apologize in advance, because there are bound to be some typographical errors in the brief as well.

I also want to apologize for the fact that we are so late getting involved in this process. I'm going to explain Ad IDEM in a minute, but we weren't in existence at the time your committee report was issued last fall. We are a very new organization and finding our way. We're also purely voluntary. I'm here at our own expense. It's obviously difficult to do what we would like to do on all occasions when short notice is involved.

Ad IDEM is a national association of lawyers who practise in the area of media law, representing most of the media organizations and their journalists across Canada. Our members have day-to-day experience in dealing with laws that impact on freedom of expression and affect the role of journalists and the content of what the media publish day to day.

One of our principal goals as an association is to enlarge and enhance the freedom of expression of all Canadians, recognizing that many in this country, as listeners and readers, rely on the media to provide them with information on court proceedings and the administration of justice, the issues before you today. While Canadian courtrooms are open to all to observe, few have the time or ability to attend the myriad proceedings that take place each day, and the media must act as their presence, serving as their eyes and their ears.

In addition, it has most often fallen to members of the media and to their legal representatives, the members of Ad IDEM, to take proceedings to protect the principle of openness within our justice system. That's how things have in fact worked in this country, unfortunately. These can be time-consuming and difficult, and it is not always possible, for financial and other reasons, to pursue them. From our point of view, it is highly desirable to have legislation that minimizes the need for such proceedings and clearly preserves and protects Canada's open court system.

• 0950

I want to make it clear that our sole focus of concern in respect of Bill C-79 is in a very narrow area, very particular proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. We appreciate the lengthy process that was undertaken by this committee and its consultations with victims' organizations over a period of time, as well as the role of the Department of Justice, which have led to what is now before you, Bill C-79.

We accept that there are valid concerns and a need to recognize the important role of victims in the judicial process. But of course a point I will be making is that it's not just victims who are protected or affected by the particular amendments we wish to address. It goes beyond merely the protection of victims, and that's where we have some concerns.

We have a concern that one voice, one element, was left out of the process inadvertently, and that is a voice to express concern over the overriding principle of openness and free expression as an inherent and essential part of our judicial system. So at this late stage, we're here to act as the voice, and we look forward in the future to getting involved at a much earlier stage and being able to have meaningful input from the inception.

I am a litigator, and I am very happy to engage in litigation. But one of the concerns we have arising from these proposals is that there will be in fact considerable litigation that may impair and obscure the real interests of this legislation and in particular interfere with the rights of the victims—which this committee so laudably wishes to pay attention to—and may give them what they want.

I won't go through the whole brief. It's before you. But I thought I would at least address the overview I have included in the brief, and then if I have time, I'll refer to at least a few of the particular amendments we wish to address.

The greatest safeguard of the effective operation of our justice system is the scrutiny of the public. Without it, no democracy can have a justice system that is truly integrated into the society and accepted by it. It is only through detailed accounts of actual cases going through the court system day after day that members of society can appreciate and understand the justice system. This cannot be achieved through impersonal treatises on the mechanisms of justice.

Following the course of proceedings right from the initial crime and all its possible horror through the investigation, the laying of charges, the preliminary proceedings, and finally the trial and any appeals provides the most effective means of educating and informing the public about the justice system. They can identify with the victims, they can understand how this crime took place, and they can follow through the process and see and judge for themselves whether it's an effective one.

Casting a cloak of anonymity over these various stages—which I must say are already subject to extensive laws controlling what may be published, much more extensive than in many other jurisdictions—can only help render these proceedings more remote, impersonal, and difficult to understand at a human level. Those attempting to follow criminal cases inevitably will lose sight of the people involved, victims will become depersonalized, and people will better be able to forget that those affected could be their neighbours, their fellow workers, or other people just like them.

• 0955

In the compelling circumstances of any particular case and the effects of that case on any particular person, it is often difficult to hold true to this overriding principle. Such principles never seem quite as important as the facts that are immediately at hand, crying out for something to be done. I've been there. I understand that motivation. I understand the emotions involved.

Further, however, the more often such principles are ignored, overridden, encroached upon, or eroded, the easier they will be to overcome and further encroach and erode in future cases. Today our concerns are about witnesses and victims, but tomorrow, let's face it, it will be those who have been accused and who turn out to be innocent. The argument will come that the accused, who have the presumption of innocence, should also be protected by a ban on their identity, because otherwise they will inevitably have their lives scarred.

This dilemma has been recognized by the courts, and the courts have said the rule is, no matter what the sensibilities of the individual:

Though the publication of such proceedings may be to the disadvantage of the particular individual concerned, yet it is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings of courts of justice should be universally known. The general advantage to the country in having these proceedings made public more than counterbalances the inconveniences to the private persons whose conduct may be the subject of such proceedings.

That ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that I referred to just now occurred before the charter. Now, with the charter, I suggest it is even more important that we recognize the principle of openness in our judicial proceedings, to permit the public to scrutinize, to criticize, and to have informed discussions about the administration of justice and the way proceedings are conducted by it or under it. This is the linchpin of a democracy, and that has been recognized.

The role of the media is to act as the eyes and ears of the public, as I put it earlier, so that through the media reports, the listeners and readers can be informed about the proceedings that are going on. That principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada since the charter and is referred to in our brief.

Clearly there may well be a role in some cases for protection of victims, and no dispute is made by us here concerning those involved in sexual cases. But the difficulty with the proposed discretionary bans, which are available not only to victims but also to witnesses, and for any and all offences—not just sexual offences, but any offence under the Criminal Code—is that there is no direct evidence of their need, of the harm caused by their absence. Without a specific public mischief being addressed, I suggest this legislation has failed to adequately take into account genuine concerns under the charter and the effects these proposed infringements of charter rights may have.

I suggest that also ignored to some extent has been the careful reasoning of Chief Justice Lamer on behalf of the unanimous Supreme Court of Canada in the Dagenais case, the case that arose over the ban on broadcasting The Boys of St. Vincent across Canada. There the chief justice considered the availability of publication bans in the course of criminal proceedings and rejected the prior approach of the common law that put protection of a fair trial above concerns for freedom of expression. He set out guidelines for consideration by courts when faced with applications for publication bans. The reasoning of that case is very important to take into account in connection with what is proposed in this legislation.

• 1000

Set out in our brief are the specific concerns we have. I'll touch on them.

First, there is concern over the definition of “victim”, or rather the lack of definition of “victim”, that is proposed.

Secondly, there is concern over what is viewed as the identifying information and the fact that the test being proposed is different from that in other legislation. For example, here, information that would be covered by the ban is any information that could identify—could identify—the witness or victim involved. Whereas under the Young Offenders Act and the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act under Bill C-68, it is anything that would identify—a clearer standard.

Next, we have concerns over the test that is imposed under the legislation for the discretionary ban or anonymity order that can be made on application. This is open to witnesses, not just victims, in all kinds of charges. We take the position, as explained there, that the test imposed fails to reflect the charter and the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Dagenais case.

I'll give you the example of the protection of witnesses who may fear retaliation or intimidation, who may fear that they may suffer real harm because they have testified. How will a publication ban assist those witnesses, when the fact of their testimony and their identity will of course be known to the accused as part of the full and fair answer and defence right of an accused? They'll know who those witnesses are, and anyone they can talk to will know who those witnesses are. Who are you really going to protect by imposing a general publication ban on the identity of that witness? What you need instead is a recognition that these people need the protection of the state from threats of harm and intimidation. A ban doesn't do it.

Next we draw attention to the fact that no explicit notice is required to the media that may be affected by such a publication ban, although that is specifically referred to in the Dagenais case.

As proposed in the legislation, there is a statutory mandatory ban—this is not a discretionary ban under order of court, but a mandatory statutory ban—on publishing any information from the application, evidence, submissions, and information given and presentations made at the application hearing when a witness or victim applies and is successful in obtaining a ban on identifying him or her.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if you're banning publication of that individual's identity, and therefore any account of what takes place concerning that application and the hearing on it will be subject to that ban, it should not be permitted to publish the circumstances of the application. In fact it's almost self-defeating, because it cloaks in anonymity the circumstances under which a judge feels it is appropriate and necessary to impose such a ban. Other people in society won't know those circumstances and won't be able to judge for themselves, not only whether it was rightly given in that case, but whether it should be given in other cases and whether in fact, when they themselves are caught up in some criminal proceeding, it is something they should seek and obtain.

• 1005

The final point we make in our brief is one again referred to in the Dagenais case by the chief justice, and that is the absence of any statutory right of appeal. If a victim or witness fails to obtain an order they want, or conversely if an order is obtained and the media or others object to it, the only avenue to challenge such an order at present, if it is made by a superior court judge, is to seek leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. Chief Justice Lamer, as quoted in the brief, has cried out for a statutory response by the legislatures, by the Parliament, to take into account this lacuna that exists in the legislation at present. It's not here. It's not in this bill. It affects exactly the people you may want to protect, the victims, as well as other parties that may be appearing on such an application.

Those are my comments. Needless to say, I'm delighted to deal with any specifics I can, but in the limited time available, I thought that overview would be useful.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Jacques Saada): Thank you very much.

Just as a point of information, we are likely going to have a vote around 10.40. The bells will start ringing. This bell is just for the opening of the day, but we'll have some other bells coming up later to notify us of a vote.

[Translation]

Thank you very much. We will now go to questions.

You have seven minutes, Mr. Cadman.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. It certainly has given some food for thought. I just have a couple of quick questions that have to do more with the first presentation, dealing with the publication ban on a victim.

I certainly understand that somebody would want to come forward and speak about their case, and I understand the troubles they have doing that legally. What about the case of, say, a mother who was a victim of a sexual assault wanting to tell her story, and the potential impact on her children of her going and telling her story? Again, I'm just throwing this out for thought. We know what kids can be like at school.

Ms. Esther Enkin: That's a real consideration, and the ethical practice of journalism asks each time what's the harm and what's the good. But in the spirit of your own bill and giving victims a sense of control, if that woman wants to tell her story and if she's an adult person, then presumably she has weighed the impact on her children and her family.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: You would hope.

Ms. Esther Enkin: You would hope. Again, in the ethical practice of journalism—and I can only speak for CBC and the people I control, and it's not a perfect universe—we do ask where's the harm and where's the good. If you've formed a relationship with a woman who is the victim of a sexual assault, to the point where she's considering telling the story, there is a trust relationship that has to be honoured. Presumably the reporter or editor and that person will have even had that discussion.

But again, in the final analysis, adult people are judged able to make decisions about their own lives, and in the case of parents, about their children. It is a real consideration, and the sensitivity.... Because we're going to use the name of the person doesn't mean we're going to indulge in or wallow in the details of the assault. Generally speaking, if we need the credibility of a person's presence in a story, it's because other issues pertain.

In the case of the Northwest Territories, it was what social services were available to the victims. How were they taken care of? Other issues of either social policy or justice pertain. It's not often the actual assault itself or the details of it that would be of any interest or would add to people's understanding. So in that way, one would hope it would mitigate it.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I certainly understand what you're saying there, but there are different levels of ethics in the journalism community, and that's what concerns me.

Mr. Daniel Henry: One thing I would add, though, is that in my experience in dealing with these—and I've been a CBC lawyer for 20 years, and I get these questions regularly, because the ban is there, and you have to decide whether or not you can publish in the specific circumstances—it's usually the case that everybody knows. The rumours are circulating already, because of this information. It's rarely a secret. So often people are coming to us wanting to get the truth on the record, as opposed to the rumours.

• 1010

The case of Donna Bouchard is a perfect example. I really urge you to read her letter, because she says that a daughter of a prosecutor was at the same school and told friends that she, Donna Bouchard, was involved in the justice system in a sexual assault case. People started to think she was a perpetrator. She was the victim. She wanted to say in the media, “Look, I'm the victim here.” She had to go to court and hire her own lawyer to make that point, to stop the rumours. Being able to stop the rumours helped her tremendously.

So it's not something where we're talking about identifying people against their wishes. We're saying they're adults; they should be able to make up their own minds. Frankly, I would expect what would happen is that prosecutors would, as a matter of routine, before the bans are put in place, talk to the victims. Maybe a booklet could even be prepared that would say, “Here are all the problems. Don't do it if you don't want to do it. If you have the right to waive the privilege later, a few years from now, then you can think about it. You have that right. You can waive it. It's all within your control.”

I think that's what the victims want, from what I can sense. They want to control their own lives. They don't want a judge to have to give them permission to deal with their problem.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The issue of a deceased victim is a little more troubling for me. I would be concerned about somebody identifying that victim and then digging up their past, which has no relation to the particular offence or the assault involved. Saying, “No, this person wasn't exactly a choir boy, and here's why”, and starting to drag up those sorts of issues....

You're advocating basically that when a person becomes deceased, the ban be automatically lifted. If we didn't want to go that far, who would you think should have control over whether to lift that ban or not? Should it be just parents, relatives?

Mr. Daniel Henry: No. In our view, at that point there is no control, because it's history. If you look at it from the point of view of what happens now in relation to somebody's reputation otherwise, from a defamation point of view, in common-law jurisdictions, there's no control over the reputation of an individual after they die. So after a politician dies, for example, all kinds of things are written about them, which may or may not be true, but opposite points of view are also published, so eventually history works out the truth in relation to the individual.

When it comes to an allegation such as this, which is 20 years in the past, if the person is not a politician or somebody otherwise in the public eye, it's highly likely, I would suggest, that this will never be published. It will only be published in circumstances where it's relevant to a public issue. Media organizations have no need to publish.... There are lots of stories. They only publish them when they make editorial sense.

In the case of this woman, there was a coroner's inquest into her death, and I think you would acknowledge that was a circumstance when it was important to discuss it publicly and have all her friends who knew the case be prepared to come and testify at the hearing, if they could find out about it. The only way to find out about it is to know who she was and hear the results.

There are many public interest reasons to want to talk about these things. But there's an anomaly in practice. There are many cases where a woman is sexually assaulted and is killed. At that point, there's no secrecy about the fact that she was sexually assaulted. In fact you want to find the perpetrator and get to the bottom of the sexual assault, so there's wide publicity of those facts. The only time you don't have publicity is when a person becomes a complainant in the process.

Let's say they die. If there's a ban on publication of the sexual assault criminal aspect, you can still talk about a variety of things relating to their troubled life and dance around the issue, if you're really determined to tell the story of that individual. But there would be an impediment, because you wouldn't be able to really tell the whole story of the individual.

What about somebody who wants to tell the story from a sympathetic perspective? Say somebody wants to say in an obituary, “This was a wonderful person. They had a troubled life at one point in their history, and they got over it courageously. This is the story.” To publish that, do you need a court's permission? I would say not.

• 1015

Mr. Chuck Cadman: My concern is again the different levels of ethics we operate at. I certainly don't have a problem with some of the issues you're talking about.

I can refer to a case of just a couple of weeks ago, dealing with the Reena Virk issue. There was an application for a reporter to see the autopsy photos. I had a real problem with that. What possible reason could that serve? If they want to talk about the brutality of the crime and want to convey that, shouldn't they be able to take the word of the pathologist? The issue is that a 14-year-old girl was brutally murdered. That's the brutality. We don't need the autopsy photos published. I realize there wasn't an application to publish, but again, once we start down that slippery slope....

That's what concerns me.

Mr. MacLeod Rogers, did you have anything to add to that?

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: The only thing I would add is that the present definition of “victim” in the legislation changes the present law and extends it potentially to deceased persons themselves—deceased at the time the charges are laid. I don't know how you feel about that, but from my point of view, it doesn't make sense. It's an important element of the case to understand who the victim is, to personalize the victim. That's another troubling aspect that relates to the questions you were asking but is distinct from it.

So at present, as I read the legislation, a person who's not even alive at the time could be covered by a publication ban.

The Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: If a ban is in place, and the victim disagrees with that ban, the victim is in effect being deprived of his or her freedom of expression. Correct?

A hon. member: Correct.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The person becomes a victim twice over. That I can understand.

In your brief, sir, you mentioned a problem associated with the definition of “victim”. Putting it another way, this freedom of expression would apply to someone whose identity is not well known. Do we not run the risk of wanting to restore the freedom of expression of a victim whose identity isn't known?

[English]

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: I absolutely agree with you. The definition of “victim” proposed under the bill is incredibly wide open and therefore is open to potential abuse. Read literally, there's no reason it shouldn't apply to a bank, the corner store, or a business of any kind, let alone individuals, and to deceased people as well as those who are actually alive. So I agree that this is open to abuse and to challenge under the charter, being impermissibly vague.

And I agree it is something this committee should take into consideration. I've proposed an amendment to this definition that would help remedy that problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

[English]

In the case of a victim who is quite willing not to have a ban imposed on her or him, and the judge decides still to impose this ban—and if the victim is, under the circumstances, very clearly defined, one person—what would be the arguments of a judge to still impose this ban? I understand—and correct me if I'm wrong—the judge has the flexibility at the present time to go ahead with it or not. What would motive the judge to actually impose this ban over the desires of the victim himself or herself? Why?

• 1020

Mr. Daniel Henry: What would motivate the judge would be the desire to protect. In Donna Bouchard's case, the provincial court judge refused to review the ban and kept it in place despite her wishes. His reasoning was that if she were to talk to the media, if she had the right to speak, that might affect the fair trial rights of the individuals concerned. That ban was later overturned by another judge, presumably on the basis that that reasoning was faulty, because fair trial rights are protected in different ways, not by having or not having an identity ban on an individual witness.

Another concern could be if you have many victims who are related. If one victim has the right to speak, does that identify a different victim? I understand that. The law should be clear, and I think it would be clear the way we've suggested it be amended. The law would obviously be clear that just because I have the right to speak as a victim does not mean I have the right to infringe a ban on the identity of someone else. So I can speak to the limit that I run up against—just as we do in the media—an existing viable ban. That is a circumstance a judge might want to take into consideration.

But if you just say to the person, “You have the right to speak”, and it's clear in the law that they do, then the media, who are banned, would know we still can't publish anything from this person that would identify anybody else, because that would put us in breach of another ban. So in practice, in the real world, it would work fine, because we do that now. Every time information of any kind comes to us, we always review it to see whether we're infringing a ban, and we try to live within existing bans.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Don't take my question as a negation of what you said, but I just want to understand this a bit better. I'm an ordinary person. I have no legal background. I'm going to be involved as a victim. I ask for this ban to be lifted, or I ask for non-imposition of a ban. That might jeopardize the possibility for another victim involved in the same thing to have the ban she or he wishes.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I can only count on my judgment to determine what the limits are going to be when I talk to the press.

Ms. Esther Enkin: No. The press has liabilities.

Mr. Daniel Henry: The liability is on the press. You see, this is not a non-speaking ban; this is a non-publication ban. We would be committing a criminal offence if we published information that served to identify someone covered by a ban.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Every media organization has a lawyer who they call before doing this. There's tremendous caution when it comes to these matters. So in reality, that's not a problem. To be honest, as a practical matter, it's not a problem.

Ms. Esther Enkin: Say you were to come as a victim to me as a reporter and say, “I want you to tell my story.” If I wrote the story and showed it to Dan as my lawyer and he said, “No, this will identify the other complainants or the other victims”, I would not be able to publish. That's basically how it works.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and for your patience at the beginning of these proceedings.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Thank you as well.

[English]

The Chairman: Those bells are summoning us to a vote. It's a half-hour bell, so we'll continue approximately 12 minutes or so, if it goes on that long.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I gather that all the witnesses are urging the House to actually distinguish between victims as a class and witnesses as a class, something the bill doesn't do now. Do I have that right?

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: That's certainly true of our brief.

I don't know about yours, Dan.

Mr. Daniel Henry: To a certain extent yes, and to a certain extent no. We accept that complainants in sexual assault matters should have the right they have to get a ban per se, if they want it. It's the “if they want it” part that we are trying to have inserted in the concept.

• 1025

When it comes to witnesses, there's an anomaly in the law the way you're presenting it. Witnesses in sexual assault matters, in our view, should be considered with all the criteria you have laid out in your amendments in Bill C-79—whether it's harmful, whether it's necessary, etc.—because it isn't a given that a witness in a sexual assault case is testifying about something sensitive. A witness may be testifying about seeing somebody go down the street. So witnesses, as a class, should be put in the same boat under Bill C-79, in my concept of the world.

As for victims and complainants for other offences being different, you've put them in a separate class yourselves in Bill C-79 by saying victims have to still go through these criteria if they're not sexual assault victims.

Mr. Derek Lee: Should I attach any significance to your use of the word “complainant”, because some complainants are victims and others are not?

Mr. Daniel Henry: No, I'm just using the words of the code. “Complainant” is the word dealing with a sexual assault victim, and “victim” is the word used in Bill C-79 to deal with all other offences. I believe I'm using the correct terminology.

Mr. Derek Lee: So should we be using the word “complainant” in our bill? Is there a need, in your view, for us to distinguish among these different classes of parties?

Mr. Daniel Henry: What led to complainants in sexual assault cases being treated specially by Parliament before is probably something that should be retained, I would expect.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's complainant as a victim?

Mr. Daniel Henry: That's complainant as a sexual assault victim.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes, as a victim. Let's have no doubt about it. Our whole goal and purpose in this legislation is to provide a role, recognition, and protection for victims as a class.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Okay.

Mr. Derek Lee: So we have a new dynamic. We've moved beyond witnesses and complainants. We have a class of people who've been victimized, so we have to shuffle things around a bit to make room for all of them, who are really us. Are you suggesting, then, that we get more precise in our use of these terms?

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: It's important to understand the genesis of “complainant”. My understanding as to how that came about and why it was sustained by the Supreme Court of Canada is that sexual assault is an under-reported crime, and in order to encourage victims to become complainants in the criminal process—to come forward—this mandatory ban on identifying them was imposed by statute.

Then a next step was taken, where witnesses in those cases, if under 18, automatically were given the same protection as a complainant, but only in those sexual cases.

What's been added here is a whole new discretionary ban that is available not just to victims, as I've said, but also to any witnesses in any criminal offence. From what I've read of the committee's own report, I don't know the rationale for covering witnesses as opposed to the very general and broad definition of victims. It baffles me why witnesses were included.

Mr. Derek Lee: So there may be some justification for sorting out a little better the two classes we're dealing with. I hear you on that.

I have to admit that, as perhaps a lot of us around the table or in the public might do, I am trying to assess where our witnesses here are coming from.

You've made your case that there is a charter-founded benefit to society in having information made available. By the same token, for those who produce copyrighted creative or current affairs programming or print material, I have to assume there's a drive on their part, from a commercial motivation, to produce copy or inventory that's not stale.

Part of what's motivating your institutions, your groups, and your associations is.... I wouldn't so much say it is commercial, but it is certainly livelihood. The occupational lives of your members, of your employees, are involved in producing material. So there's a commercial motivation here. Would you acknowledge that, from each of your groups?

• 1030

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: I think the CBC may have a distinct response on this. This comes up often, needless to say: “Why are the media interested in this? They're in it for their own salacious self-interest, to make money.” But the fact is in our society—a free enterprise, non-socialistic society—that's the way it works.

Newspapers and broadcasters that are privately owned have to present material that people want to read. That's indisputable. The alternative.... As Churchill would have said, democracy is a terrible system, but it's the best system we have. I submit that in fact, for all of its pitfalls, our system works pretty well where people have a drive and understanding to get information out. Any alternative, to me, is frightening.

Mr. Derek Lee: You don't have to back it up. You have the charter on your side.

Mr. Brian MacLeod Rogers: Well, that's true.

Mr. Derek Lee: So for those who would infringe that right in our society, the burden is on them. That may be us in the House of Commons now as we move ahead with this, or judges, who rely on whatever legislation is out there.

Mr. Daniel Henry: I would like to suggest it would be fair to accept that the people who produce programming are not doing it simply because it's the only way they know how to make a dollar. They're doing it because they've chosen that profession because they think they are doing some good, just as you've chosen your profession because you think you're doing some good, and just as lawyers choose that profession for similar reasons.

Journalists, certainly at CBC, and I believe elsewhere, are trying to tell people stories. They're trying to reflect society to itself. That's what we're talking about. The theme of your bill is, give victims a voice. What we're talking about is the very same thing.

Ms. Esther Enkin: I could hide behind CBC being a non-commercial network and dodge your question that way, but I won't do it. And any rumour to the contrary is not true. We are a non-commercial network, especially in radio. But I won't dodge it that way.

We have standards and practices we adhere to, and we take them very seriously. But beyond that, I think you would be shocked at the number of stories we do not do. In fact what makes editors and reporters tear their hair out daily is not, “Oh, gosh, I wish I could tell the salacious details or do this juicy story.” It's, “Gosh, I only have 30 minutes” or “I only have five minutes in this newscast. Can't I have some more time?”

So it really is being driven by the need for a product of that sort. It may be that part of the market gears itself to it, but the vast majority of mainstream news and information operations do not live in that realm, nor are they ever short of product.

Mr. Derek Lee: We all subscribe to the openness manifested in the charter. If I could find out how much Peter Mansbridge was making from the CBC, then you would have really made your point.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: I wish I knew.

Mr. Derek Lee: In any event, you also propose that the victim referred to in our legislation be allowed some form of opt-out. Is there anything drafted that would precisely....?

Mr. Henry, I know you've done some work on this.

Mr. Daniel Henry: Yes, it's on page 6. You missed it earlier.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes, I came in late.

Mr. Daniel Henry: On page 6 of our brief, we have a very specific draft.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's good. I'll look at it.

Mr. Daniel Henry: It would fit right neatly into your bill without any amendment.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Daniel Henry: I have to say I did canvass a number of members of the committee from most parties prior to coming to this meeting. You may learn this through discussing it with each other. I was surprised at the consensus with the commonsense nature of what we are proposing.

• 1035

If you read the letters from victims who are supporting us, one of them says they are surprised that it requires legislation to have common sense prevail, that a victim should be able to speak if she wants. But of course we know legislation has to deal with virtually everything.

Mr. Derek Lee: I thank you for bringing to our attention the gap in the appeal process. I can't imagine the Supreme Court of Canada would be happy about that. They're making every effort now to constrain the number of cases they hear. I think we may have an opportunity to ask questions of others later as to why we wouldn't want to provide a mechanism for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Members of the panel, Mr. Henry, Ms. Enkin, and Mr. MacLeod Rogers, thank you very much for being here this morning, for your presentations, and for your incisive responses to our questions.

To the members of the committee and the observers here this morning, we will be reconvening after the vote in room 536 Wellington, so we have to move. Sorry for the inconvenience, but we'll see you then.

• 1036

• 1127

The Chairman: I'll reconvene the meeting. We have with us today, from the Canadian Police Association, Mr. David Griffin; from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Mr. Steve Sullivan; and from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Susan MacAskill and Joanne Jarvis.

Thank you very much for appearing on Bill C-79. Please make your respective presentations, and then we'll go into questions and answers.

Ms. Susan MacAskill (National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): MADD Canada is very pleased to be in Ottawa this morning and to provide our thoughts and comments on Bill C-79.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just take a moment to introduce to those in the room, specifically the committee, Mrs. Carolyn Swinson, who is present with us today. Carolyn is the president-elect for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and will be taking office at our leadership conference in September this fall. So this may possibly be my final appearance before the committee. I would like to thank you for the the various opportunities I've had to come, and I encourage you to look forward to seeing Carolyn at the table as we continue to work together in the process of bringing in new legislation.

MADD Canada would like to commend the minister for moving on the recommendations of the justice committee and presenting Bill C-79. We know firsthand that many victims of crime in Canada are being re-victimized by our country's criminal justice system, making the introduction of this new legislation a step in the right direction for all Canadians. We are particularly pleased with the preamble and the proposed changes to the presentation of victim impact statements to the court.

I would now like to introduce Joanne Jarvis, who is the national victims' services coordinator with MADD Canada. Joanne has some comments to make at this time.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis (National Victims' Services Coordinator, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): I'd like to speak briefly about some of the services MADD Canada provides. I trust you all have a package with a brief outline of some of the things we do in relation to work with victims.

Our mission is to stop impaired driving and to support victims of this violent crime, and both the national office and our volunteers work very diligently and very hard to fulfil both parts of the mission.

I myself, as well as the volunteers at the chapter level, hear daily from victims who are struggling with all sorts of issues coming out of a crash that's injured them, injured a loved one, or killed a loved one. We hear daily from them. They're starved for information about their case. They're confused about court proceedings and angry about injustices regarding the death or injury of a loved one.

• 1130

As often as we can, MADD Canada really strives to provide opportunities for victims to heal. We know the healing process is never complete. Their lives have been forever changed, and we don't pretend we can heal people. But as often as possible, we try to provide opportunities for them to heal in some small way. Our hope is that, little by little, they will be able to move along in the healing process and empower themselves, and perhaps look at helping others through victim advocacy.

If I can draw an analogy, for a lot of the victims, as for ordinary folk, the road of life at times is smooth and at times is rough, but after the crash, you'll hear from many that there are gigantic potholes. A person they loved is missing from the table. A person they hoped would grow up and go off to university now has the functioning ability of a three-year-old or a six-year-old, and they're now required to care for them in their home. So as much as we can, we try to smooth out the road or fill in a few of those potholes and help them out as best we can.

I'm going to turn things back to Susan MacAskill.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: The toll of human life lost and those injured in Canada due to impaired driving is a national tragedy. Impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Every day, 4.5 people are killed and over 125 are injured by people who drink and drive. With these astounding numbers, literally tens of thousands of Canadians become victims of impaired driving each and every year.

I'd like to take a minute to help you understand that until you become a victim of impaired driving, you have no awareness of how you'll be affected by the system.

I had numerous frustrations in the court proceedings with the man who was responsible for my father's death. Communications did not come through from the justice system or the police department about court dates, hearings, or the charges that were laid. When the sentencing was laid down, we had to enquire about the date ourselves, as a family, to be present in court at that time. Then once the offender was sentenced to a federal penitentiary, I was too late becoming involved in the process to request to be in attendance at parole hearings.

These are some of the issues we want to bring before you today. They are concerns of ours, with the policy centre.

We are in agreement with the justice minister when she states that the criminal justice system depends on the participation of victims and witnesses of crime. We understand that the establishment of the victims' policy centre will in a general sense develop policy and legislation initiatives with regard to victims and witnesses of crime.

MADD Canada, as a national voice of victims of impaired driving crimes and an organization strongly committed to supporting victims, is anxious to partner with the victims' policy centre in its endeavours to undertake initiatives that are meaningful to victims.

As indicated in the justice minister's press release on Bill C-79, the victims' policy centre is to ensure victims' perspective will always be considered in the development of any future legislation. We strongly agree with the minister that victims need a voice that is listened to and respected.

MADD Canada believes the new office will effectively serve victims of all other related service providers and groups if a strong partnership is developed between the victims' policy centre and national victims' groups. We suggest the victims' policy centre conduct biannual meetings with national victims' groups to discuss initiatives, develop best practices, and be able to collectively plot the future direction of victims' rights and services in Canada.

We believe the justice minister will be able to provide effective leadership for victims of crime through the actions of the new office. We trust sufficient resources will be provided so that the office achieves its objectives.

Additionally, we would like to see all federal ministers join with the Minister of Justice to forge a partnership to be certain the interests of victims of crime are considered with all federal department initiatives—for example, with the Solicitor General and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act review, or the revenue minister and his department's implementation of Bill C-18 measures to train border crossing customs officials.

Lastly, we believe this new office will be able to significantly contribute to the advancement of victims' rights across the country by adding its experience and expertise to the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and the provinces. It should be a welcome added resource for federal-provincial discussions relating to victims of crime and their rights.

• 1135

We firmly believe the victims' policy centre can assist victims of crime in filling in or smoothing over some of the potholes along the road. We look to this new office to take a leadership role within the federal process and to foster partnerships between victims' groups and the federal government.

To do this, MADD Canada respectfully makes the following suggestions for consideration in the development of the new office and how it functions. MADD Canada suggests the victims' policy centre establish itself as a resource for information pertaining to victims of crime for all federal government departments and agencies, conduct biannual meetings with national victims' groups, and provide leadership in federal-provincial discussions on rights of and services to victims of crime.

MADD Canada would like to reiterate our commitment to work with the federal government to ensure that victims of impaired driving and all victims of crime are treated with dignity and respect and their views are sought and considered.

Our appreciation for the measures of Bill C-79 goes to the MPs around this table today for the work in the justice committee and to the justice minister for following through on the recommendations of the committee and swiftly delivering legislation.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a brief on behalf of the resource centre. Unfortunately it was only finished last night. I've been consulting with CAVEAT and Victims of Violence to help facilitate this committee, and I finally got it finished last night. So it's not translated, but I do have copies to leave with the committee.

The Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent that we receive the brief now in one official language?

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, usually the committee would not itself officially circulate a document that is not in both languages, but all members I think agree to receive it as it comes from the witnesses. It's simply a matter of physically moving the brief to MPs, and I'm happy to have that happen.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Sullivan. Proceed.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I also have a copy of a brief from Priscilla de Villiers, which she's asked me to leave with the committee as well. It's only in English and I only have one copy, so I'll leave it for the committee.

As you know, Mrs. de Villiers is in the hospital from a nasty fall, but she did fax me a brief statement she'd like me to read to the committee, and then I'm going to touch on just a very few recommendations we've made in our brief.

Due to an accident our President is unable to appear in person, but as we have worked closely with the Victims Resource Centre and Victims of Violence in discussing the proposed amendments we have asked Steve Sullivan to speak on our behalf.

The proposed amendments are long overdue and give victims a status that previously was largely unspoken. Our recommendations would serve to strengthen the proposed revisions to the Criminal Code. We would like to single out two areas for discussion.

Firstly the government is to be commended for strengthening the Victims Impact Statement provisions. This is a development which speaks to the need for the victim to be given a practical role as opposed to merely being regarded as a beneficiary of protection. It is a first step towards the victim's generic participatory right in the justice system.

Secondly, the change in the Victims Fine Surcharge provision will increase substantially the resources available to the Provincial governments to address the needs of victims. To date there has been a marked inconsistency in the level of support and services for victims of crime from province to province. Now we expect standards to be set so that there can be an expectation of consistent, uniform support afforded to victims in every province and territory. This could well be the first challenge for the proposed Policy Centre for Victims. We recommend that a uniform law conference be organized to develop an acceptable standard of victim support. Although these amendments represent a significant step forwards we must guard against complacency. In the past the problem of the alienation of the victim has not been adequately addressed either by the federal or provincial governments. Studies in the USA have consistently demonstrated that victims are far more affected by the process than they are by the outcome of a case. The principle of restorative justice, for example, is based on addressing the needs of the victim to participate in the process. However, we still have to establish the extent and value of this participation in the administration of justice. Our challenge is to look for further ways to address victim alienation without jeopardizing the accused's right to a fair trial.

The provincial bills of victims rights were intended to address this challenge, but to date have proved to be inadequate. We urge you to consider our recommendations and act promptly on the proposed bill as it reinforces the legitimacy of the needs of the victim, increases the protection of the most vulnerable of victims, and will increase the revenue urgently needed to supply adequate support and services for victims of crime in Canada.

• 1140

That was on behalf of Priscilla de Villiers, the president of CAVEAT.

I'll briefly touch on the recommendations we have made in our brief.

First of all, let me say we support the bill in its entirety. We appreciate the minister acting so swiftly on this committee's recommendations, and we also appreciate this committee's work on the report. It's encouraging when you can have a committee made up of such diverse political parties work together for a common goal, as you recently did with Bill C-69. Again, we congratulate you.

However, there are some things that could improve the bill, as good as it is. The first is with regard to subsection 486(1.2) of the Criminal Code, which is the subsection that allows a victim under the age of 14 to have a support person sit with them while they are giving testimony. Bill C-79 does propose to amend that subsection to allow a person with a mental or physical disability to have a support person, but the age does not change.

The age was changed in the sections that allow for the prevention of personal cross-examination, for example, and under the sections that allow a person to testify outside a courtroom or behind a screen, the age is under 18. So we're unable to understand why the provision regarding a support person wasn't changed as well, to bring the ages under those protections in line with each other and have some consistency. Why a 16-year-old sexual assault victim could not have a support person sit with her but could testify behind a screen, for example, we're simply unable to understand. So we offer the recommendation that that provision be amended to provide a support person for a witness under the age of 18.

The second recommendation we've made is with regard to proposed subsection 486(2.3), dealing with personal cross-examination by an accused. The bill raises that from under the age of 14 to under the age of 18, which we support. We would ask the committee, however, to consider removing the age limitation completely, or at least introducing a mechanism by which someone over 18 could, if it was felt necessary, apply to a judge to have the accused not personally cross-examine them.

So, for example, a woman who's 18 or 19 or 20 who didn't feel she could adequately provide evidence by being cross-examined by the accused could ask, through the Crown, that the judge deny the accused that opportunity, and as in the other sections, appoint a counsel to do so. That is similar to a bill introduced by Bloc MP Pierrette Venne, which removed the age limit entirely. We're asking that at the very least there be some discretion for people who are over 18.

The third recommendation we are making is with regard to stalking or criminal harassment. The protections of not being personally cross-examined, having a support person, testifying behind screens, and that type of thing don't include, in our opinion, the offence of stalking. There is reference in some of the sections to offences that involve violence that is alleged, used, or threatened, and it has been argued that in extreme cases, stalking would fall under those sections. However, as we know, many of the cases of criminal harassment don't involve violence, don't involve threats of violence, and violence is not alleged. It's simply a stalker calling the victim repeatedly on the phone or a stalker following someone repeatedly. There's no threat of violence at all.

So to strengthen the protections for young victims of stalking, it should specifically be added to those sections. We've outlined a section specifically in the brief.

We would like to commend the committee and the minister for the amendments to the victim impact statements. Giving victims that choice is incredibly important. It's one of the most consistent concerns we've heard from victims over the years.

We would, though, like to extend to victims who choose to do an oral or written statement the protection that they are not to be personally cross-examined by the convicted at that point. For example, if the parents of a murdered child choose to do a victim impact statement, or even in the case of impaired driving or a sexual assault, if the victim chooses to do an impact statement, we don't think the convicted person should be able to cross-examine. It is rare, but it is allowed for the convicted or his lawyer to cross-examine, because it is in essence evidence that is being considered at the sentencing hearing. So we've suggested an amendment to protect victims in that case.

• 1145

We've also gone a little further with regard to judicial review hearings, or 745 cases. Victims in those cases should not be cross-examined by the applicant. One of the reasons the families of the victims of Clifford Olson were not allowed to give oral statements at his hearing was that he made it quite clear to the judge that if they did, he would question them. We don't think that's right, especially when we're dealing with people who've been through the process already. There's been a conviction and the trial is over, so there's not the presumption of innocence. Those protections should be provided to victims. The possibility of it happening would discourage victims from giving those types of statements.

Our final recommendation is with regard to the victim fine surcharge provisions. We, like CAVEAT, acknowledge the benefit to victims of this amendment making it automatic. It will allow provinces to provide hopefully adequate services for victims throughout the process.

However, this should also be applied to the Young Offenders Act or the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is in line with the philosophy behind both of those acts: fostering responsibility, ensuring accountability and meaningful consequences, and encouraging repair of harm done to victims and the community. Those are all in line with victim fine surcharges. It is not inconsistent with the declaration of principles in either act to provide for automatic victim fine surcharges. And again, there is the provision in Bill C-79 that if there is undue hardship, the person can be exempted from that.

Those are our recommendations. Again, we fully support this bill, and we appreciate the government's and this committee's work on it. We look forward to working with the minister in the future regarding the victims' policy centre. Much of what MADD has said are elements of a centre we would like to see eventually.

I suspect there might be some questions from members about the previous witnesses. Not having had time to prepare, I will just say on behalf of the resource centre—because I haven't discussed this with CAVEAT or Victims of Violence—we have sympathy with the argument that a victim who wants to speak out should have that opportunity. There should be consultation with the Crown regarding a publication ban, and if years later the victim does decide they want to speak out, there should be a process to allow them to do that.

I am, however, somewhat concerned about pressure from media. I have dealt with it, and I refer back to the Olson 745 hearing. I don't think this is reflective of all media by any means, but certainly there are those media who are aggressive when they want to speak with a victim, and the more sensational the crime the better. In the Olson case there were some families who wanted to speak to the media and some families who didn't. One of the things we were there to do was to try to facilitate the media and the victims. I had some very heated discussions with media about speaking to the families who hadn't been spoken to before. They wanted fresh faces and fresh words.

So I would offer that. Victims who make an informed choice to speak out publicly should be allowed to do so.

As for the victim who is deceased, at this point, without having given it in-depth consideration, I would recommend you not take that recommendation. The victims we work with who do want protection I would argue would want that protection even after their death. The mother who was raped and who hasn't told her family of what happened to her probably doesn't want her family to know even after she's dead. So we would extend those publications and that publication ban for the victim.

We would simply say that those victims who choose to speak out should be allowed to do so. For those victims who choose not to, no one should make the decision for them. The previous witnesses talked about the case with the coroner's inquest. Well, that lady's story was told. The issues that arose in that lady's story were told. They were told to this committee. You simply didn't know her name. I don't think that affected the story at all. I don't think it affects the ability of the public to examine the issues that were presented. You simply didn't know her name.

Those are brief comments on the previous witnesses. I'll entertain any questions the committee may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Griffin.

• 1150

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will certainly try to be brief.

My name is David Griffin. I'm the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association. I'm here today to convey our support for Bill C-79.

Police officers are often the first face, the first source of comfort, the first hand extended to a victim of crime. In many jurisdictions the responsibilities to assist, support, and provide information to victims rest with our members.

As you've heard today, certainly there are potholes in that system. Often the information forthcoming between agencies is not as seamless as it should be. Certainly we are acutely aware of the frustrations felt by victims in the justice system. We understand their sense of isolation. We understand their concern that they are not given standing in the process, and often the sense that their views have not been appropriately considered, or that they have been abandoned by the system in the pursuit of justice.

Through a collaborative effort, the members of this committee, under the leadership of your past chair, the late Shaughnessy Cohen, formulated a broad series of recommendations in your report, Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not a Veto. We would like to commend the members of the committee for your work on that effort. We also commend the Minister of Justice for responding very swiftly to those recommendations and presenting this legislation, Bill C-79.

I'm here today to lend our support to this bill and also to the recommendations that have been brought forward by Mr. Sullivan on behalf of the victims' resource centre.

I'd like to make two points before I finish. The first is not relating specifically to this bill. We appeared before the committee several weeks ago with respect to Bill C-284, and I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the committee, in particular Mr. Saada, and also Mr. Lowther and Mr. MacAulay, for their leadership in resolving that very important issue and for arriving at a consensus that we understand will be delivered to the House in the very near future. We appreciate the effort made by the members of the committee on that issue.

I'd also like to comment on the issue discussed this morning with respect to publication. We appreciate very sincerely the role the media plays in our society to make sure we have openness, accountability, and a justice system that's transparent, and to make sure justice is not only done but is seen to be done. There is a delicate balance, however, with the rights of individuals who, by no choice of their own, are thrust into a justice system that is very confusing, is very complicated, and even for professionals who work in that system, is difficult at times to understand.

I would share the comments of the previous speaker, Mr. Sullivan, with respect to the need for informed consent. Certainly it seems appealing that a victim of crime who chooses to waive a publication ban should have that ability, but that ability should not supersede the rights of others who are still subject to that ban, the protections afforded by that ban, or the rights of an accused to have a fair trial. And there's a need to ensure that the interests of the state are not compromised by an individual choosing to waive an order of the court. So we would encourage the committee, in reviewing that issue, to consider an appropriate process to ensure the balance is maintained.

With respect to the issue of deceased parties, I would concur again with Mr. Sullivan's comments on the dignity and the memory of an individual and their right to ensure that is not tainted by the needs of others to, it would seem, add a face or add some type of credibility to a case that can otherwise be reported.

We heard this morning a discussion of ethics, and most certainly the vast majority of professionals in the media hold very high standards for their conduct, but we are all aware as well that there are others who subscribe to sensationalism, who will pursue victims of crime in a very vigorous effort to encourage those people to make their story known. We would not want to see a situation where a person, maybe out of frustration or out of a desire to have the media staked out at their door simply leave them alone, choose to waive a protection or a right that has been provided to them by the courts. So there is still a need for an appropriate process in those instances.

• 1155

My final comment is that there seemed to be an effort to confine this issue to one simply dealing with sexual assault. I would submit to the committee that there are a whole host of other offences that involve human dignity and matters of intimate personal or family issues. Those could include situations involving impaired driving, domestic abuse, stalking, fraud, and crimes that are perpetrated on the elderly. These are all situations where the committee has recognized there is a need to provide greater protection to the victims of those crimes. So we would encourage you to be very cautious in entertaining any amendments to that part of the bill.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today and encourage the swift passage of this legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Griffin.

We'll go to a seven-minute round.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't have too much. I want to thank the witnesses for coming here and for consolidating and getting everybody together so that we didn't have to go through weeks and weeks of hearings.

I just had one question, and Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Griffin already answered it. I was wondering about the issue we heard this morning. Does MADD have any perspective on the testimony we heard this morning?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Concerning the publication ban?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: It's not something I personally can say we've come up against. Some of it has to do with the nature of impaired driving crimes. Most of the frustration that I know the victims I've dealt with feel is about the apprehension and prosecution, and the proceedings in terms of the victim impact statements, which we feel have been adequately addressed. So the entire issue of a publication ban is not something I could say we've had very many concerns about.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Griffin had recommendations that they would like to see us amend some of the bill. Does MADD not have any concerns at all as to further recommendations they might want to make?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: One of the things we were disappointed in, but are still hopeful for, is the creation of a national standard of practice. One of the ways we're hopeful that can still happen is through the policy centre coming together with federal and provincial counterparts, whether those be the respective ministers in each province or the directors of victims' services in each province. We hope that somehow, through a clear agenda outlining what we would consider minimum practices, we will be able to accomplish that so that all Canadians have the right to the same kind of treatment and the same kind of information from province to province.

We're still hopeful that will happen. It wasn't a recommendation put forth by the committee, but we're hopeful that the policy centre will be able to address some of those things.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I think we're all really waiting to see what the minister has up her sleeve in this regard.

Just before I finish, I'd like to publicly thank MADD for inviting my wife and me down to the candle vigil a couple of weeks ago. That was for purely personal reasons; it had nothing to do with what's going on here. Again, I publicly thank you for it.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: Thank you.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

I also want to commend each of the witness groups today for their continuing contribution to representing segments of the public in the legislative process here. They each have made useful contributions in the past, and I'm pleased to see that continuing in this legislative proposal.

The only question I have is addressed to the victims' resource centre.

• 1200

You suggest that offences involving harassment be considered for inclusion here. The objective of this legislation of course is to provide a better recognition for the role of victims in the process. One of the goals is that whatever we do here should enhance the criminal justice process so that we don't impair either the reporting of a complaint—I don't mean journalistic reporting; I mean the reporting by the complainant—or the prosecution of a complaint, and that there not be unreasonable or excessive re-victimization of somebody who has already been a victim.

In talking about that group of stalking and harassment offences, you don't always have a victim who's vulnerable, though often you do. So one of the reasons that may not have been included so far is that with harassment, you can have victims who are indeed quite capable of taking care of themselves and don't need any buttressing or help. I'm not going to paint a picture, but some victims will be acknowledged to be vulnerable for any number of reasons, and some victims will not be vulnerable and don't need the protection. So it would be tough for us to, by adding harassment in, accord protection to a class of victims who are not vulnerable.

Often, but not always, the victim of a stalking offence is female. It's not always the case, but in more than enough cases to warrant mention, the stalking or harassment victim is female. I hate to fall back on that male-female distinction, because males can be vulnerable too, but....

So it's tough to justify including in a class people who would not normally be seen as vulnerable or in need of protection, when the charter generally only allows the special protections if there's a reasonable cause for that. That may be the reason.

Would you like to try to explain why we should consider broadening the class of special cases to include people who might not be seen as vulnerable?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I have a couple of points. When talking about vulnerability, it's important to remember that in these sections, we're talking about children basically, under the age of 18, or in some under the age of 14. So one could argue that that class of people are somewhat vulnerable anyway.

Also, even in the current sections on the protection of sexual assault victims, some of those victims won't want the protections offered under this bill. Some of them will want to face the accused, so if the accused wants to question them, that's not a problem.

What's important though is that the options are there for them to at least say whether they would or wouldn't like that. The same choice should be there for the criminal harassment victim, who might be a 13-year-old girl who's being stalked by a 45-year-old man. That could be very intimidating.

The other point is that none of these protections are automatic. The Crown can make an application, and the judge will weigh the factors and say, “Okay, you are vulnerable enough”—in the absence of better terminology—“to deserve this protection” or “No, I don't think you need to testify behind that screen”.

There will be many stalking victims who won't need these protections or who won't want these protections, but there may be some who will, just as there will be some sexual assault victims who will want these protections. At least the avenue should be open. If the judge feels it's appropriate and if the victim wants it, it should be there.

I think Mr. Griffin wanted to add something.

Mr. David Griffin: Yes, if I could.

By coincidence, yesterday we appeared before a Senate committee on the issue of criminal harassment, and I had with me two police officers who in fact deal with this particular issue on a daily basis. One of them is actually here today to observe these proceedings.

• 1205

I learned from their evidence that in fact in a lot of, if not most, instances of criminal harassment, a pattern of violence has precipitated the stalking or harassment, or there has been some significant history that would indicate these people are perhaps more vulnerable than others who may otherwise fall under the protections in this legislation.

So I would argue that we're dealing with crimes of obsession. We're dealing with situations where the stalking is just part of a behavioural pattern that becomes increasingly more dangerous to the victim. So they are perhaps more vulnerable than others who have been the victims of an offence merely by happenstance.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The other point is, as other witnesses from the department have pointed out, if it's an extreme case where there is violence, for example, these protections could apply. We're just saying put the section in for those cases that don't include the threat of violence, to protect those victims as well, but for the extreme cases, victims could have these protections.

Mr. Derek Lee: To turn your factual example on its head, among the class of cases we're trying to provide for here, even where you had a 45-year-old man stalked and criminally harassed by a 13-year-old girl, it still would be up to the judge to make a decision about whether or not the protections we legislate for here should be accorded, if there's a need.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: If you brought all these sections into consistency, all the sections would apply to those under 18. So the 45-year-old victim wouldn't have these protections.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, the point I'm making is that I've turned your factual situation around. Maybe the 45-year-old man isn't really that intimidated or in fear of the 13-year-old stalker, but I suppose we're letting a judge make a decision here.

But we have to have legislation that will be consistent with all of our rights as reflected in the charter, so we can't make the sections and the provisions so broad that they could be seen prima facie, on analysis, to go too far under the charter. But you're suggesting we take that potential risk and leave the ultimate decision to the judge as to how far the protections should go?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes, to the judge, to the victim, and to the Crown, which ultimately makes the application. There's a series of discretions.

Mr. Derek Lee: And do either of you have any comment on the absence of an obvious appeal process after the publication ban is made?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: From the victims' perspective, they can go to court and have the ban removed, and it's a somewhat cumbersome process. Sheldon Kennedy, for example, who was referred to earlier, I believe eventually went through that process, but he spoke out long before the ban was lifted, and no one was ever prosecuted. I've dealt with sexual assault victims, in cases where there have been bans, who have decided themselves to go to speak to the media, and there have been no prosecutions.

So you could look at it and say right now there is a sort of rule that if the victim speaks out to the media and the media reports it, to my knowledge, there have been no prosecutions.

In the case referred to earlier, there was a prosecution I think largely because the victim wasn't alive and didn't give anyone permission to do that. But if it is found to be a cumbersome process, there should be a process by which a victim could make an informed decision to go and have that ban lifted, if they decided to do so.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: There being no further questions, I'd like to thank the panel for once again appearing before us. It's very important for our committee to hear from you about the situations and circumstances of victims and victimization in a very real, tangible, and often personal way. It's important that we hear this.

Mr. Griffin, just as a matter of information on Bill C-69, this committee has reported the bill back to the House, and we anticipate it will be dealt with tomorrow, on unanimous consent by all parties. We hope it will be out of the House and on to the Senate tomorrow.

Mr. David Griffin: Excellent. Well done.

The Chairman: Ms. MacAskill, we very much appreciated your appearances and your testimony over time on the various issues that have come before this committee, and we wish you the very best in your future endeavours.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

The Chairman: There being no further business, we're adjourned.

Thank you very much.