[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 11, 1997
.1131 
The Chair (Ms Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair, Lib.)): Hello. Again we are on Bill C-46. From
[Translation]
the Regroupement québécois des CALACS, we receive Michèle Roy et Claudette Vandal.
[English]
Welcome. I understand you have a brief. So we shall hear that, and then we shall ask questions.
[Translation]
Ms Claudette Vandal (Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel): I would just like to clarify one point. CALACS is the acronym we use to designate sexual assault centres. In many instances, it is often easier to use the acronym as it is less unwieldy.
Our organization serves as the umbrella agency for 17 assault centres throughout Quebec which each year provide assistance to thousands of women and adolescent girls who have been sexually assaulted. CALACSs advise women who have been assaulted of the recourses available to them, help them deal with the fact that they have been assaulted and the aftermath and regain control of their lives and finally, support them if they decide to seek medical attention or take legal or other action.
Sexual assault centres are guided in their actions by the desire to defend the right of women to be treated with integrity and to obtain justice. CALACSs try to ease the way for women through the different stages of the legal process. They are also concerned about prevention and awareness and they are working to change the conditions which our conducive to sexual assaults.
The primary role of our organization is to support clients by giving them a place where they can talk about their experiences and tap into resources. We try to mobilize people and groups to fight the problem of violence against women, notably by working to get new resources in place throughout the province and by cooperating with agencies that work to improve living conditions for women.
Our organization is also seeking to bring about change. Its mission is to heighten public awareness of the issue of violence against women, and to inform authorities of the impact their decisions have on victims of sexual assault. We are here today in pursuit of this mission to discuss Bill C-46.
In the matter of requests for access to the personal records of sexual assault victims, several recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, notably in O'Connor, Beharriell and Carosella, have given defendants in sexual assault cases access to the personal records of their victims. As a result, we are concerned that requests to produce personal records will become routine and that access to such records will become increasingly easy for defendants.
The Regroupement québécois des CALACS is of the opinion that this practice violates the rights of women. A number of groups representing sexual assault victims have already argued this point before the Supreme Court and before this committee. Parliament must therefore move without delay to establish a legal and procedural framework which restores a genuine balance between the rights of women to safety, integrity and privacy and the rights of the accused to make a full answer and defence.
Our organization therefore praises the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Allan Rock, for taking the initiative of tabling Bill C-46 respecting the production of records in sexual assault proceedings. We welcome this initiative, since it is aimed at restricting and clearly defining the conditions whereby the personal records of victims can be accessed. Generally speaking, we support the bill. However, we would like to see certain improvements made to it, and we will go into these further later on.
Our support for the proposed legislation must, however, be viewed within the context of court rulings which have thrown the doors wide open to this discriminatory practice toward women. Bill C-46 intends to partially close a door which, in our opinion, should never have been opened this way. Putting it another way, we would have preferred it if the courts had not ruled that defendants are entitled to see the personal records of victims and we would have preferred not to have to call upon the legislator to pass a law restricting such access.
.1140
This recourse is relatively new to the criminal justice system. In the past several years, requests for access to personal records have increased dramatically. Defence lawyers argue that they can no longer fully defend their clients against the charges unless they have access to these records and the courts at all levels often agree with them. Oddly enough, these requests almost always exclusively involve the records of complainants in sexual assault proceedings. Our organization deplores this state of affairs and urges the legislator to put an end to this quickly by clearly taking the position that this practice is patently discriminatory.
In Quebec, requests for access to the personal records of personal assault victims are not yet routinely made. This phenomenon is not as prevalent yet as it is in other provinces, in particular Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. However, there is no guarantee that the practice will not spread into Quebec. Court rulings in these provinces have left sexual assault centres in Quebec very worried that this trend will adversely affect their work with clients.
Like sexual assault centres in other provinces, many Quebec CALACSs have records containing information about women who come to them for help. In some cases, these records may contain nothing more than information of a general nature so that the centre can stay in touch with the victim throughout the recovery period. In some cases - and this depends on the procedures that each centre adopts - the records may contain more detailed information about follow-up action, for example, the needs expressed by the victim, the support and assistance provided, the proposed plan of action, the problems encountered and progress made as well as an overall assessment of the assistance provided. Depending upon the type of assistance given, these may be individual or group records. The form and content of the records vary from one centre to another and from one woman to another, according to the centres' policies and the needs and desires of women. These records are useful and relevant to the support process and to centre workers who follow up on cases.
Women who seek help from the sexual assault centres disclose information of a very personal nature about their experiences before, during and after the assault, about the mental and physical suffering that they have endured and about the efforts they have made to confront their emotions. They share this information in a support setting. Trust between the victim and the centre worker is indispensable and is achieved because there is a agreement to respect the victim's privacy.
The centres help women deal with their emotions and with the aftermath of the assault. Women are free to discuss any subjects they choose. For example, they are not required to reveal the circumstances in which the assault was committed. Centre workers do not conduct investigations or cross-examinations or keep detailed notes about the assaults. Although women can access their records at any time, the notes taken by the centre workers are not systematically read, verified or revised by the victims. These records were not meant to be in integral account of what transpired. They are meant instead to be used as a tool by the worker to help the victim; they are in no way meant to be disclosed to third parties.
Consequently, we seriously question the motives behind requests for access to these records and the real benefit of using them during trials compared with the possible consequences arising from their use.
All women who have been sexually assaulted feel that they have been violated to the very core of their being. Often, CALACS workers are the first and sometimes the only people in whom assault victims confide. They are also the only support network if the victim decides to take legal action against her assailant.
CALACSs and the Regroupement stand behind women whose personal lives have been or could be disrupted because of certain court rulings which grant the accused access to the victim's personal records. Mindful of the repercussions that these rulings have had on the work of sexual assault centres across Canada, Quebec CALACSs support the centres' efforts to assist these women and challenge the discriminatory nature of rulings which authorize access.
.1145
Ms Michèle Roy (Co-Director, Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel): Why are the courts granting access to personal records? Why is the defence trying to gain access to these records? Why has the number of requests increased dramatically in recent years? Why does the focus appear to be on the personal records of women who bring charges of sexual assault against their assailants?
The reason officially given for requesting access to these personal records is that the accused is entitled to make a full answer and defence. Defence lawyers argue that they have to verify that the complainant is telling the truth, that she hasn't fabricated the assault either in whole or in part, that there is no malicious intent on her part to seek revenge or to falsely accuse an innocent man. The defence also maintains that it needs to see the records to verify the credibility of the complainant or of the witnesses and their ability to testify.
In short, the objective is to closely scrutinize the victim's character in an effort to assume some measure of guilt on her part. The goal is to uncover some evidence that the victim is responsible in some way for the crime that was committed or for the circumstances that led to it. This is a curious and worrisome state of affairs: on the one hand, the victim is presumed guilty while on the other hand, the accused is presumed innocent and this presumption is guaranteed in the Charter and reflected in legal practices. Yet, under the Charter, all parties present are presumed innocent. Is there a double standard at play here?
Defence attorneys request access to the personal records of assault victims often because of existing biases that women lie and make up stories, particularly when they accuse a man of sexual assault. They justify their actions by arguing that defence attorneys must be able to uncover the real truth in the women's records, that is the lies, contradictions, fantasies and other false charges that these women have made, to ensure that their clients can fully answer to the charges brought against them.
Another argument advanced is that the assault may have been suggested or planted in the women's mind by a therapist. This is the false memory syndrome that you spoke of earlier. While the existence of this syndrome has not been proven scientifically and is widely challenged by a number of experts, it has been increasingly used as a defence in court and has already led to the disclosure of the personal records of a number of women victims. Lawyers claim false memory syndrome in order to gain access to the psychological records of women to see whether or not they have been influenced by their therapist.
This argument is especially used when the charges relate to incidents that occurred in childhood and charges are not laid until many years later. In such cases, the defence argues that these women have been convinced by their therapist that they were sexually assaulted and that recollections and symptoms were fabricated.
Women are suspected of being either liars and manipulators, or simply crazy, easily influenced and not very credible in general, particularly when they say they have been sexually assaulted. When they are viewed as acting in good faith, then those working on their behalf are accused of being fanatical feminists who want to make these women into victims at all costs.
Clearly, the growing number of requests for access to records is a tactic designed to intimidate victims. These women already live in fear because of the assault and now they have to put up with the fear of someone delving into their private life and of personal details becoming known to their assailant during the trial. Requesting assistance then becomes a negative thing for women since their personal records could be used against them.
There is no question that disclosure of personal records can have a major impact on assault victims. Disclosure represents a serious violation of their right to security, integrity, privacy and equality, fundamental rights which are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Access to records also restricts their right to seek recourse through the justice system and the right to request assistance while ensuring that their privacy will be respected.
Sexual assaults affect a broad segment of the population, although women and children are the main victims. Regardless of the form of the assault, often the lives of victims is endangered, and their physical and psychological integrity is shaken. The victim's privacy is also affected. When a sexual assault occurs, sexuality is used as a weapon and intimacy becomes a target for violence.
.1150
When a woman who has been sexually assaulted places her trust in the legal system and files charges, she is forced to follow the procedural rules designed to take into account interests other than her own. She must recount in precise detail, over and over, the events and circumstances relating to the assault. She must recount to the police, to the Crown attorney, to the defence lawyer, to the judge and to members of the jury the facts and circumstances surrounding the assault. Even today, these interrogations and cross-examinations can be conducted in an atmosphere in which biases and discriminatory attitudes towards victims are present. It is already a harrowing experience to have to recount all of the details of the assault.
What's more, if the judge grants the accused access to certain details about the victim's present and past life, such as the information contained in her personal records and if the accused is allowed to read about the therapy she received from a resource centre, this constitutes a further violation, quite aside from the crime that has been committed, and a further invasion of her privacy unveiled for all to see in court. This is just one more injustice that the victim must bear.
Myths about sexual assaults and sexist biases against women are persistent and undermine all women, making them reluctant to disclose and report sexual assaults. We know that sexual assaults are among the crimes reported least often to police and to the justice system. These myths make victims hesitate to fully trust the justice system and its ability to obtain reparation, to protect them and to prevent other criminal acts. These myths, which unfortunately still pervade our system, also constitute an impediment to the fair and equitable treatment of victims.
Access to records penalizes certain categories of women even further. Women are more vulnerable and more marginalized. Since the accused is granted access to records almost automatically, as is currently the case, these women will be even further discriminated against and will be more vulnerable because certain details of their private life and the particular problems they have will be disclosed. Indeed, the more often women seek assistance or call upon the services of assault centres, whether on a voluntary basis or not, for example if they are involved with the Youth Protection Branch or if they have already been charged, the greater the amount of information in their personal records. As such, they become ideal targets for impromptu fishing expeditions.
The decision to authorize access to personal records also has an impact on services and on the legal system. Rulings already delivered by the courts have affected the services provided to victims. For example, one aid centre hesitated to include a complainant in a support group because it was concerned that the information contained in her records might one day be subpoenaed, thereby resulting in an invasion of the privacy of all group participants. As was mentioned earlier, when 19 group participants are subpoenaed to give testimony, each group member must come to court. A number of centres have had to incur substantial unexpected expenses to defend the privacy of their records.
Many people who offer services to victims are now afraid of having to testify about personal records and resent this intrusion. Some are occasionally reluctant to offer assistance to sexually assault victims. They want to avoid any hassles and they alter their practices to exclude this type of clientele.
We are in danger of turning back the clock to a time when doctors, for example, refused to examine women who had been raped because they didn't have the time to go to court. Furthermore, witnesses who are called upon to testify during the trial may no longer be able to provide support to the victim because they are now witnesses.
Ms Vandal: We would now like to submit to you our comments and principal recommendations concerning Bill C-46.
First of all, we would like to see a statement of principle included in the proposed legislation.
The preamble to Bill C-46 describes societal values and choices in the face of incidences of sexual violence. We believe these are essential if we are to put an end to discrimination against sexual assault victims. We call upon Parliament to reaffirm these values and choices in a clear, strongly worded statement of principle which would be included in the legislation, similar to what we have in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act.
We call upon Parliament to include in this statement of principle some very clear indications of the objectives sought by the legislation in order to guarantee that it will be interpreted properly at every stage of the process.
.1155
We propose that this statement of principle include the affirmations contained in the preamble to Bill C-46, which reaffirm that this legislation hopes to counter certain discriminatory practices that have emerged over the years and which have been sanctioned by rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The statement of principle should also reaffirm that Parliament intends to continue debunking the myths and sexist biases that still pervade the justice system. It should also take a stand with regard to victims of various forms of discrimination. As such, we support the proposed statement of principle submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law to this committee.
Regarding section 278.1 which concerns the definition of ``record", we appreciate the fact that the definition proposed is fairly broad. We believe that the legislation must address the issue of the systemic abuse of applications for the production of personal records of all kinds. It should be noted that in the past, courts have received applications for a variety of records, ranging from report cards and employee files to family planning clinic records and adoption records.
If the legislator agrees that the fishing expeditions we have seen the courts embark on in recent years constitute a discriminatory practice designed to upset and harass victims and attack their credibility, it is important then that the definition of ``record" broadly protect information of a private nature that complainants or witnesses would not want passed along to others against their will.
The definition of ``record" must therefore protect people against discrimination and intimidation as well as provide a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is even more important for women who have been the victims of various forms of discrimination. As we stated previously, some women are disadvantaged by virtue of their colour, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. They face even more discrimination from institutional workers with whom they come into contact.
Eventually, these biases find their way into the records that these individuals or institutions have compiled ``on or against the victims". Granting access to these records on the grounds that they are not protected under law, since there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, could leave victims vulnerable to further discrimination.
Moreover, we wish to draw the legislator's attention to the inclusion of personal journals and diaries in the definition of ``record". It should be noted that the inclusion of ``without limiting the generality of the foregoing" in the definition implies that this is not an exhaustive definition. Therefore, any requests for records other than those listed in the definition could be evaluated based on the types of records described in the legislation.
We wish to voice our concerns about the danger that the inclusion of personal journals and diaries might open the door to applications for records of a similar nature, that is journals or diaries kept by the victims themselves, not by the institutions.
For example, yesterday we were talking about the concept of a personal diary. Each time we read the definition of ``record", we found that something wasn't quite right. Personal journals and diaries are not records kept by third parties, but rather by the person herself. If these are included in the definition, it is possible that the accused could request access to records which are not personal journals as such, but similar in nature. We see a danger of this happening.
We also recommend that proposed sub-section 278.2(1) be amended. This provision concerns the production of a record to an accused. We appreciate that this legislative provision recognizes that access to records is currently requested almost exclusively in cases of sexual assault and that it is necessary to offset this problem.
.1200
However, to ensure that this practice does not become routine in the case of other types of charges where victims are for the most part women, for example in cases of marital violence and criminal harassment, or where victims belong to a specific group that is the target of discrimination, whether it be racism or discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical limitations, the legislator should consider the possibility of conducting a study on the disclosure of the personal records of complainants in criminal proceedings for assault, harassment or other crimes in order to be in a position to react more quickly if ever such practices were to become routine.
We are also asking the legislator to amend sub-section 278.3(4) of the bill which deals with insufficient grounds. The act must be very clear as to which grounds are insufficient and unacceptable when it comes to requesting access to records. It must be clear to the defence that the grounds must be specific and well founded. Furthermore, judges must have strict guidelines to follow when it comes to determining the relevance of an application for the production of records.
Given the way this provision is currently worded, not enough emphasis is placed on the obligation on the part of the accused to convince the court of the validity of his application for production of the record. To say that assertions by the accused are not sufficient on their own to establish that a record is ``likely relevant" implies that these assertions, if well argued and demonstrated, justify such access. This diminishes by the same token the criterion of ``likely relevant".
Thus, even if an accused does not know the contents of a record, he can speculate as to them and argue hypothetically. In other words, he can say something that is untrue in order to get at the truth. Consequently, he can initiate the search process and take the first step toward intimidating the victim. For this reason, we ask that the words ``on their own" be stricken from this provision.
Furthermore, to avoid consequences that could prove even more prejudicial to women, not only must the application demonstrate that the record is likely relevant, but also that the production of this record is necessary in order for the accused to make a full answer and defence.
Therefore, we propose that the provision be worded as follows:
(4) Any one or more of the following assertions by the accused are not sufficient to establish that the record is likely relevant or necessary to ensure the right of the accused to make full answer and defence.
Other corresponding provisions which use the same term should also be formulated this way:
We also recommend the inclusion of a ground which would read as follows:
(k) that a narrow temporal relation exists between the establishment of a record and the decision to file a complaint against the accused.
We also recommend that changes be made to subsection 278.5(2) of the bill which pertains to factors to be considered.
We applaud the fact that the legislator reiterates, at this stage of the process where the judge weighs the grounds, the importance of considering the salutary and deleterious effects of the determination on the accused's right to make a full answer and defence and on the complainant's or witness's right to privacy and equality. This phase is consistent with the will of the legislator to strike a real balance between the constitutional rights of the accused and those of the complainant.
We wish to remind you, however, that a hierarchic approach should not be taken when the rights set out in the Charter conflict or that one should assume that certain rights take precedence over others. Recent court decisions seem to indicate that a hierarchic approach was taken when applications for the production of records were granted almost automatically, tipping the scales in the process overwhelmingly in favour of the accused's right to make a full answer and defence. This amounts to sanctioning inequality and systemic discrimination toward victims, who in 99 per cent of the cases are women.
.1205
If Parliament is to safeguard the rights of society, it must react and reaffirm the rights entrenched in the Charter in order to encourage victims to file complaints. The state has a obligation to enact laws and initiate procedures which uphold the rights of all individuals to equality, security and privacy.
We would also like to propose a number of changes of a technical nature to the bill. For example, with respect to the serving of the application, we question the procedure which calls for subpoenas to be served on the person who has possession of the records.
Instead, we recommend that the application be served on the Crown prosecutor and then passed along to the woman and to the other persons concerned, who would be permitted to give testimony if they so wish. However, no one should be subpoenaed to appear in court as this involves considerable expense in terms of time and money when at this stage of the proceedings, all the judge is supposed to do is hear views and form an opinion of the case. Once a determination has been made to produce the records, these could in fact be produced for the second phase of the proceedings.
We appreciate the fact that the persons covered by subsection 2 do not have any costs to assume in relation to this action, but we do feel that the court should, in some cases, order the accused to pay costs if it is proven that his application was unfounded or that his motives and intentions were frivolous or hurtful.
We also wish to reaffirm that at the second phase hearing, the accused should not be present when the judge examines the records to determine their relevance or what kind of balance to strike between the rights of the accused and those of the complainant. Nor should the accused be allowed to view these records.
Regarding the conditions on production, once a judge has ruled in favour of the production of certain records, the conditions should allow for a minimal amount of intrusion. Every possible effort should be made to respect the privacy of the victim. We recommend that the conditions outlined in the legislation become mandatory.
Pursuant to proposed section 278.7 which concerns the production of the record, once a judge has ordered that part of the record be produced to the accused, he can refuse to produce them to the complainant and the Crown if in his opinion, it is not in the interest of justice to do so. We have to wonder what interest there is in allowing the accused, but not the victim, to view the records, unless some of the statements contained therein proved to be self-incriminating.
Lastly, we would like to propose a number of additions to the legislation. We propose that a support fund be made available to complainants and records officers to help victims deal with applications for production. If a judge decides that an accused is entitled to access a victim's personal records and if a woman decides that she no longer wishes to pursue the matter, she should be allowed to withdraw the charges and not be required to testify, without leaving herself open by so doing to charges of contempt. This option has already been suggested by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé.
Finally, we ask that the legislation take effect immediately and extend to all cases pending before the courts.
Do you have any questions for us concerning our presentation or certain points in particular?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): Ms Gagnon, you have ten minutes.
Ms Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you for your presentation. Clearly, access to records should be restricted to prevent frivolous applications. We all know the impact that this has on women and in particular on organizations that help women who are victims of assault.
.1210
A number of points were raised by the other speakers. However, not a great deal was said about the financial support that could be offered. That is a problem area. If these organizations or these women need to mount a defence, shouldn't a fund be set up to help them? Unless a person was called upon during the year to produce certain records or attend court in person, she would not be eligible to benefit from this fund. What kind of fund should we be looking at? What bothers me is that the government can consider some form of compensation when the application is frivolous and all of the procedures have been followed.
I believe this bill is a positive step, but it would have been better if the records of victims were not accessible given the major impact that their disclosure can have. The preamble is a good way of maintaining the awareness of judges. As the witness pointed out earlier, judges have been trained a certain way and they have many biases. I do not wish to judge the situation in advance, but experience often reflects a certain reality.
Ms Roy: I would just briefly answer that as far as the support fund is concerned, there is currently no mechanism in place to limit access to the records and this means that all kinds of applications are being received and that groups and individuals must incur substantial costs.
I am confident that if the legislation is strictly enforced, the number of applications will decline considerably. The accused and their lawyers will think twice before filing unfounded requests or making applications based on very discriminatory, biased perceptions. The number of fishing expeditions should be limited.
However, in some cases, situations will continue to occur and women who have pushed ahead and filed charges of sexual assault should not necessarily have to pay to defend themselves. They should be able to tap into a legal aid fund. Generally, the Crown attorney handles the trial proceedings and women should not normally have to pay fees of any kind.
The situation has now changed. The woman must defend her own interests and protect her privacy. It's not that the Crown attorney can't do this, but in some cases, there may be divergent interests or the woman truly wants to be represented. Therefore, I think the first step would be to set up a fund to assist women who need help and, in some cases, to help the organizations that provides services and support them throughout the proceedings.
Ms Christiane Gagnon: Earlier, I asked what kind of persons were making applications like this and under what circumstances. Is it that the accused believes the victim has something to hide? Have you done any kind of analysis to determine which type of person requests access to records? Why would the accused want access to testimony or records in order to prepare his defence? For example, is it because the defendant knows his victim and knows that she has certain weaknesses? What grounds are there for making applications like this?
Ms Vandal: What we can tell you about are the applications that were made in other provinces. As we stated in our brief, applications like this are not yet routinely made in Quebec. Women in our organization have not encountered similar requests. However, you rightly mention that in cases where women know their assailant... It should be remembered that in the majority of sexual assault cases, the victims know their assailants and they in turn may be aware of a number of things. They may be newly acquainted with the victim or they may have had an on-going relationship with her for several months or years. Let me say again that in the vast majority of cases, women who have been sexually assaulted know their assailants.
.1215
We can therefore assume that they know some things about the woman's life that relate to her credibility and this knowledge may be reason enough to go on a fishing expedition to find out whether she has turned to a sexual assault centre for assistance.
Even if the accused does not know everything about the kind of help the victim received at a centre, anyone even remotely knowledgeable about assault centres will know what types of services are available in general and can conclude from this that the woman has done certain things and can bring this up in order to gain access to the records.
Ms Roy: If we admit that this is an intimidation ploy to undermine the victim's credibility and imply that she has perhaps lied, it is not even necessary for the accused to scare her into withdrawing her complaint. These are often the motives that we are dealing with. The objective is to shake up the victim. It is not easy for a victim to file charges and initiate this process, knowing full well that she will have to reveal what happened to everyone. Her confidence will be shaken and she may be afraid of having to tell everyone that she has already sought help from an alcohol treatment centre. Her life will be on display for everyone to judge. There are all kinds of details about our personal life that we don't wish to share with everyone.
I believe that these are the motives of the accused. I'm not certain that there is a typical person who resorts to this strategy, although one pattern is emerging. Many of the assailants are probably thinking the following about their victims: I will shake her up, cast some doubt on her credibility and show everyone what kind of person she is. Often, people have preconceived opinions. Because a women frequented a particular place or did something or sought treatment for alcohol problems, she is already categorized by many people.
Ms Vandal: An assailant who knows his victim to some degree or is familiar with certain details of her life wants to uncover information that the victim does not wish to disclose in order to undermine her credibility.
We're not talking about secrets. The aggressor tries to imply that she has already lied because she was charged previously with another offence and that she is therefore not a very reliable person. The objective is to try and call into question the credibility of a victim during sexual assaults proceedings. This was the strategy adopted before assailants could request access to their victims' records. Now they have additional ammunition they can use.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Do you have any further comments?
Ms Christiane Gagnon: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to leave soon. I will read your brief very carefully. You stated your position very clearly. You would like certain improvements to be made to the bill and you can rest assured that I will look at this very closely. I hope that we will be able to amend certain aspects of the bill, although this legislation is nevertheless a step in the right direction, given the current situation.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I want to thank the witnesses for their thoughtful presentation. We have a great deal of background material to read.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Mr. Rideout.
Mr. George Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): I have no questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Paddy Torsney): Are there any further comments?
Ms Roy: I would like to reiterate that we are not calling into question the fact that the accused is presumed innocent. However, the victim should also be presumed innocent at the outset, instead of attempts being made to prove her guilt by pouring over all kind of information which is often irrelevant and which has not been gathered according to the rules of evidence.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): We noticed that partie de pêche is an interesting new expression in our vocabulary.
[Translation]
Ms Roy: Yes. Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé used this expression often.
.1220
Ms Vandal: Madam Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé of the Supreme Court coined the phrase. We have to give credit where credit is due.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers: It was a fishing expedition.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): I don't use that very often in French, for instance. Thank you for reminding us of the great expression.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
[English]
This committee is adjourned until this afternoon.