[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 30, 1996
.1005 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I call this meeting to order. If we can get the television and photographers out of here, that would be great.
We have with us today the Hon. Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and the deputy minister.
Minister, I think you've been here before. There will be a statement from you and then we'll have questioning from my colleagues.
[Translation]
The Honourable Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair. I always find it a pleasure to come before your committee to discuss the activities of the Justice Department.
[English]
I have distributed a speech that I do not intend to read, you'll be happy to know. It records various things the present government has done in the area of justice over the last year or so.
I want to acknowledge at the outset that the work done in the Department of Justice was only half of the effort in achieving those legislative changes. The other half was hard work done right here by members of this committee, of all parties. I know the enormous amounts of work this committee has put into such things as the firearms legislation, the changes to the Criminal Code in relation to sentencing and all the other things you've worked so hard on. I am very much indebted to the committee for the hard work and very objective approach it has taken to these justice issues. It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to working with you in the months to come.
May I also say that as you hear me speak, I'm really only speaking on behalf of a very large group of people at the Department of Justice who work very hard to create policy, to draft legislation and to assist me in things that I do.
At the table with me this morning is the deputy minister, George Thomson. Also present are officials from all sectors of the department, who are here to assist me in responding to questions. May I say what a privilege it is for me to work with them.
The spending levels at the Department of Justice are down again this year. In 1996-97 we're spending a total of about $452 million, including for the most part payments to others, provinces and territories and shared cost programs. By the year 1998-99 it will be down again to $402 million.
So we're doing more with less, like every other department of government. I think it's important to acknowledge the very hard work done by the terrific professionals at the department under increasingly difficult circumstances.
Rather than focus on the past and what's been done over the last twelve months, I'd like to look with you this morning at the future, in particular to touch upon some of the issues that I think are priorities for Justice, to determine whether you agree or whether you think there are other things we should be doing, and to discuss the progress we've made so far on those subjects.
[Translation]
I'd like to explain briefly how I intend to respond to certain challenges in the area of justice in Canada in the coming months.
First, my department is looking at strong measures to protect the public from high-risk, serious offenders. This issue was a clear priority at the annual meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice earlier this month. There was general agreement on a package of legislative measures to deal with high-risk offenders, including amendments to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code, the expanded use of restraining orders and long-term supervision after release from prison.
Madam Chair, I continue to work with the Honourable Herb Gray on a comprehensive strategy for dealing with high-risk offenders. I intend to introduce an appropriate package of proposals in the House of Commons as soon as possible.
.1010
[English]
Another important priority is young offenders. You know that two years ago, when the government tabled Bill C-37, I asked this committee to undertake a broad, comprehensive review of the youth justice system in Canada. You've now turned to that important and difficult work. I understand you've already started hearings, with more scheduled in the weeks to come.
I must report to the committee that expectations of your work are very high. Wherever I travel in Canada I speak of it, and I hear from all quarters expressions of interest in the work you're doing.
There have been recent and very troubling incidents of violent crime by young people. There is broad public concern about the effectiveness of the youth justice system. It's important that we face those questions squarely and openly, that we look at the evidence and that we clear the air.
I've asked this committee to produce - and I know I can count on it to do so - specific and far-reaching recommendations with respect to youth justice in this country. When I appeared here last November 20 as the first witness in your hearings, I sketched out my own views of the issues and invited your attention to specific subjects. I very much look forward to the report you will make.
The federal-provincial-territorial working group is going to provide you with their own report, I think within the coming weeks, to assist you. I'd be happy to discuss any particular questions you may wish to raise this morning.
A third area of importance, of course, has to do with victims and the way they're treated in the justice system. Some weeks ago our colleagues in the Reform Party introduced a resolution in the House of Commons that was adopted after some debate and resulted in this committee being asked to examine the plight of victims in the system and to look at the criminal law to see whether it should be changed to show a greater respect and consideration for the interest of victims.
At that time our colleague Randy White put before the House what he called a bill of rights for victims. I took that with me to the meeting in early May of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and distributed it. At my request the subject was on the agenda. I asked that senior officials from the provinces work with our senior officials to determine what national strategy we could put in place to coordinate federal and provincial efforts to show sensitivity and respect for victims in the criminal justice process.
I reminded my colleagues of the statement of principles adopted in 1988 by ministers of justice and attorneys general. I asked that the senior officials look at Randy White's principles to determine whether they could be added to the statement that had been adopted by ministers. I can report to this committee that there was unanimous agreement that it is well worth undertaking.
The task of showing sensitivity to victims in the criminal justice process takes place on many aspects. One in particular will be the subject of legislative proposals in the weeks ahead, and it has to do with confidential records concerning victims in sexual assault cases when those records are in the hands of third parties.
I refer here to counselling, rape crisis centre, physician or other confidential records that are subpoenaed by defence counsel when sexual assault charges are brought. This subject was treated by the Supreme Court of Canada in recent months in the O'Connor and Behariell judgments.
In our view the issue requires treatment by legislation, and we will be bringing forward proposals for the consideration of the House to be studied by this committee in the weeks ahead, again focusing on sensitivity toward victims of crime.
I touch upon a fourth priority when I speak about the Constitution, the first ministers conference and the process envisaged by the Speech from the Throne in February. Another of the priorities the Department of Justice will address in the weeks and months ahead is providing whatever support is necessary to the Prime Minister and other members of government as we seek to address constitutional issues facing the country. I've worked closely with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in looking at the commitments that were made in the throne speech, in examining constitutional issues. We'll continue to provide support in that regard in the months ahead.
.1015
There are just two other things I would mention before stopping and inviting your questions. One has to do with crime prevention.
[Translation]
This government recognizes that complex social problems culminating in violence cannot be resolved by the justice system alone. The Department of Justice continues to work with other departments and levels of government and with non governmental organizations to develop an effective and enduring response system to crime and violence.
Among the many efforts to make communities safer are those of the National Crime Prevention Council. The Council calls upon Canadian communities in a broad-based partnership to address the factors contributing to crime.
[English]
Last night I was in my own riding, of all places, in Etobicoke, in Metropolitan Toronto. I attended and spoke at a public forum on community safety. The mayor of Etobicoke has created a task force to look at that issue. I saw there what I see in so many communities across Canada - a realization that for all the good work this committee does and for all the changes Parliament makes in the criminal law, if we're going to make our streets safe, if we're going to resolve the issue of crime and violence, more will be required than just legal amendments, because more law, or even better law, is not the only simple answer to crime and violence.
It was clear to me last night in Etobicoke, as it is throughout the country when I travel, that there's a realization in communities that crime prevention has as much to do with the strength of families as it does with the length of sentences. It has as much to do with early intervention as it does with mandatory supervision. It has to do as much with literacy as it does with law.
I saw last night, as I have in so many other parts of Canada, a realization that unless communities stop wringing their hands and instead roll up their sleeves and address this issue themselves, we won't solve this problem. Yes, we need a strong criminal justice system with stern responses for violent crime. Yes, there's room for improvement. We're more than happy to examine options. But in the final analysis, legal changes are only part of the problem. There's a direct connection between social justice and criminal justice.
Madam Chair, we will be renewing our commitment to crime prevention. We will be advocating the allocation of greater resources to that purpose. We'll be working with the Crime Prevention Council and we'll be acting upon our fundamental belief that a comprehensive strategy is needed if we're going to address these issues.
The last thing I want to say is that I will of course devote time in the months ahead to seeing to completion the legislative initiatives already under way. I have bills before the House on criminal law improvement. I think Bill C-17 will soon come to this committee after second reading debate. I hope we can get second reading debate on it before the end of June so that you can spend your summer on Bill C-17.
Just kidding, Madam Chair.
Then there's Bill C-25, the Regulations Act, which I think is going to improve the way in which we make subordinate legislation in this country, and Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to stalking, female genital mutilation, child prostitution and child sex tourism.
Today I'm tabling legislation in the House to implement the changes in child support by amendments to the Divorce Act, changes that were announced in March.
In addition, of course, others will come along that will need our attention, but those broadly are the priorities to which I intend to devote my energies for as long as the Prime Minister sees me fit to perform this job, this wonderful job, of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
.1020
[Translation]
Madam Chair, these are ambitious measures - all the more so in light of the severe financial restrictions accepted by my department as part of this government's efforts to place Canada's economy on a more secure footing.
My department faces reduced resources at a time of increased demands. However, it is up to the challenge.
[English]
With the outstanding professionals in the department and with the collaboration of the members of this committee, I look forward to working with you in the months ahead toward achieving these goals.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Thank you very much. Ms. Venne, you have ten minutes.
Ms. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Minister, I'd like to address the Thompson case this morning as it is under your jurisdiction.
You probably know, as I do, that the Canadian Judicial Council has just decided, quite exceptionally, to initiate an investigation into the behaviour of Justices Isaac and Jerome.
I'd like to know why you didn't make that request yourself instead of forcing the Canadian Judicial Council to act and undertake actions that are really without precedent for it.
[English]
Mr. Rock: I understand that no complaint has been received by the council; nonetheless, the chair of the judicial conduct committee, Chief Justice McEachern, has written to the executive director of the council to ask her to request comments from Chief Justice Isaac and Associate Chief Justice Jerome so that the committee might determine what, if any, action by the council might be appropriate pursuant to its mandate under the Judges Act. That, I think, is an accurate statement of what has happened.
Madame Venne has asked why I haven't acted. First of all, my focus, after I learned of the communication between Ted Thompson and the chief justice, was on the litigation. We have three important revocation cases in the Federal Court. As soon as we learned about the communication between Ted Thompson and the chief justice - because Ted Thompson told us about it - and as soon as we saw the correspondence - because Ted Thompson showed it to us - we then put it in the hands of counsel for those three parties. Under Ted Thompson's direction, we did that.
Motions were then brought by those three parties, asking the court to stay the revocation cases because of the meetings that had taken place and the correspondence that had been exchanged.
We were then busy preparing material responding to those motions, arguing to the court that they should not stay or dismiss those revocation cases because of these events, that other steps were more appropriate - not staying or dismissing these cases. So our focus has been on the litigation.
In recent days, our focus has been on steps to ensure that internally at the department there's a clear understanding of the principles that govern and that we deal with Ted Thompson in particular in the appropriate way, having regard not only to what he did but also to the fact that he's an excellent lawyer with 22 or 25 years' service to the public in the Department of Justice.
As to Chief Justice Isaac, I must say, I start from the proposition that my first responsibility is the department and the litigation. Any citizen is free to make a complaint to the judicial council. That's not my unique role, responsibility or right. Furthermore, I don't regard this, at least based on the facts I know at present, as an appropriate case to invoke subsection 63(1) to ask for an inquiry.
Now that I know that the judicial council itself, through the chair of the conduct committee, has taken steps to examine the matter, I am quite content to let that procedure go forward. The judicial conduct committee will be in a position to assess all the circumstances and decide what, if any, action should be taken. Frankly, I think that's the appropriate forum for that decision to be made.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: I'll keep it at that for my comments on that matter. I'll get back to you in another forum that you know very well.
.1025
I'd rather speak to Bill C-27. From what we can see, and according to the amendments you've made to the Criminal Code, the wording would only apply to people less than 18 years of age with regard to subsections 268(3) and 268(4).
Of course, we know that genital mutilation is mainly practiced on young girls, but we're astonished to see the government prepared to tolerate it for consenting people who are of age. The government is stating that genital mutilation practiced on consenting adults does not concern it. It does seem to be in agreement as it would not oppose the practice on people 18 years of age or over.
I'd like to know why you're not thinking of purely and simply prohibiting genital mutilation.
[English]
Mr. Rock: What we did in Bill C-27 in relation to female genital mutilation was make it clear that the practice is included in the definition of aggravated assault in the Criminal Code. Anyone who's convicted of the offence is subject to the penalties prescribed.
We focused on children because they are most commonly the victims of this criminal act.
In relation to people over 18, we also provided that no one can consent to this procedure within the meaning of that term in the code.
It may be that you will wish to hear from Richard Mosley. He's here this morning from the criminal law section. He might be able to give you a more specific answer on the circumstances of an adult who might be inclined to undergo for religious purposes a procedure that deals with genital mutilation.
May I invite Mr. Mosley to respond?
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: Yes, certainly.
[English]
Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law Section, Department of Justice): The Supreme Court of Canada some years ago, in a case called Jobidon, ruled that one could not consent to an assault that constituted bodily harm, a wounding or other aggravated form of assault on the personal physical integrity of the individual.
The bill provides for greater certainty. We have specified that consent could not be given in the case of those to whom the enactment would apply, those under the age of 18.
For adults, it is our view that the law currently holds quite clearly that an adult cannot consent to have such an operation performed on their person.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: You are saying it's already included in the Criminal Code.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: It's included by interpretation.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: As the minister said previously, genital mutilation is already provided for in the Code. Despite that, it was decided to specify that "mutilation" also includes "genital mutilation". Why shouldn't the same thing be done for people over 18 years of age and be more specific instead of relying on the interpretation?
[English]
Mr. Mosley: Again, it was considered that for greater certainty in case any question might arise that a parent could consent on behalf of a child to the operation, a specific provision should be put in to the effect that they could not. It was our view then, and remains our view, that the law as it was set out in Jobidon makes it clear that consent cannot be given to such an operation on the individual.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: I have another question on the same bill.
Mr. Rock: May I add something, Madam? In the coming months, as I have said, you will have the opportunity to examine that bill in detail. If, after your examination, you still have some concerns on this matter, we could look at alternatives within the global framework of the bill.
.1030
Ms. Venne: I'd simply like to ask you what will be done about a Canadian citizen or resident who temporarily leaves the country - with the clear intent of getting around the law - with a teenage girl to have her mutilated, or even mutilate her himself, outside the country and then coming back into Canada.
In my opinion, that situation is not covered in Bill C-27.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: If the crime could establish that the child was removed from the country with the intent of committing an offence that would constitute an offence in Canada on the child, then there is already a provision in the Criminal Code that deals with that problem. If that could not be established, then our territorial jurisdiction would not apply to that offence. There is an issue that has been raised by a resident of Winnipeg relating to facts of that nature and that is a matter we expect the committee will want to examine when the bill is before it for consideration.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: Fine.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Thank you, madam Venne.
Mr. Hanger now has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Thank you Madam Chair.
Minister Rock, I'd first like to thank you for making such a detailed departmental long-term policy agenda that was faxed to me. I understand it was taken from the drawer of your office and leaked to, I guess, various members here. I was just going through that long-term agenda, and it's interesting to note under the strategic comments that in your departments view and probably in your own view many of the issues that you're bringing forward are considered complex and controversial. You make that note throughout the whole document in reference to a serious of initiatives. One of course is the high-risk offenders, the amendment to the Criminal Code and Parole Act. A murder sentence is considered complex and controversial. Another one to the forensic testing, DNA evidence, the banking. Why would banking of DNA data be considered controversial?
Mr. Rock: I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. First of all, I hope you didn't need a document from my desk drawer to tell you that these issues are controversial, Mr. Hanger. If that came as news to you, then there's something else I have in my drawer you may need.
Mr. Hanger: I wouldn't mind seeing it.
Mr. Rock: I'm sure you wouldn't. Mr. Gray, as you know, has the lead on preparing the legislation for the creation of the data banks for DNA, but there are controversial elements, at least controversial in some quarters. Who should be tested? Who should give a DNA sample? Should we go into the prisons and require people convicted of violent offences to give a sample so that they're in the bank for the future? Some say that's a good idea. Others say that there are issues of civil liberties and freedoms that should be taken into account.
Should we keep the bodily sample as well as the results? Is that a privacy issue? Some people think it should be destroyed and shouldn't be kept. What kinds of offences should involve automatically taking a DNA sample in the future? Should we take it from people who are accused or people who are convicted? So there are issues I think that we're going to have to come to grips with, many of which were identified in a consultation document that the Solicitor General released some months ago on this question. I'd be grateful if you'd do one thing for me. If you'd look through that long-term issues agenda and find one issue that isn't complex and controversial, I'd be very happy.
Mr. Hanger: Well, there are a few here right away. The training of judges and professionals after the passing of Bill C-41 isn't considered such. It is noted there in this particular area of DNA, and given the fact that some people might even be found innocent with this data, wouldn't it be an advantage to police agencies across the country to be able to accumulate this information because it would be worth while both to convict and to find innocence?
.1035
Mr. Rock: You mean if a sample was taken under the present warrant procedure but the person was found not guilty, we might still want to keep the sample. Is that what you mean?
Mr. Hanger: In part.
Mr. Rock: As you know, the bill that was passed last June, which is Bill C-104, now in the Criminal Code, provides for the keeping of the record only if that person is convicted, not if they're found not guilty.
Yes, I can understand some people might want to make that argument. That's one of the complex and controversial issues. How long should we keep them? Should we keep them for people who are acquitted? We have to come to grips with those. I'm not suggesting this morning I have simple answers for them. I know Mr. Gray is accumulating comments he's getting because of his consultation document and at some point we're going to have to face up to them and make a decision. We'll come here and the committee will look at it.
Mr. Hanger: Thank you for that.
As for section 745, again in this particular long-term policy agenda Nunziata's bill is mentioned. Why your reluctance to support Nunziata's bill? Why are you reluctant to repeal section 745?
Mr. Rock: I don't think it's the right policy decision. I'm not in favour of simply repealing section 745. I've made that clear in the past. I think people do an injustice to section 745 when they describe it as a ``loophole'' or something that was sneaked into the criminal law. It wasn't. It was done in the broad light of day twenty years ago in the context of a discussion on ending capital punishment.
At the time, in 1976, when there was capital punishment in this country, the sentences were commuted as a matter of course. No one had been executed for fourteen years. For someone convicted of capital murder - this is someone who could have been hanged - the average time spent before parole was about thirteen years in prison. For someone who was convicted of non-capital murder the average was about seven or eight years.
So it was in that context that Parliament debated going to twenty-five years. In other words, it was almost doubling what a first-degree murderer would get. It was also in the context of looking at other countries and seeing that in countries we like to compare ourselves with in terms of social policy the average term of incarceration for first-degree murder was about fifteen years.
What Parliament did at that time was say twenty-five years parole ineligibility for first-degree murderers, but after fifteen years people taken off the streets and out of communities, out of coffee shops and taxicabs and doctor's offices, the kind of people who are our constituents, will come on a jury and they can look at the circumstances of a person, including the nature of the offence, and decide whether the twenty-five years should be lessened to some extent or altogether, to provide for immediate application for parole. That was the idea; and frankly, in the circumstances I've described, I don't think it's an unreasonable approach.
I think there should be changes to the section. That's my view, and I've expressed it. But I don't favour its absolute repeal, because I think it's possible to imagine cases in which after fifteen years someone is a different person, where having regard not only to the circumstances of the offence, which obviously were tragic - a life was lost - given the passage of time and the person they've become and all the other circumstances, twelve people taken from the community, the people we represent... These are not decisions made by pointy-headed lawyers or bureaucrats remote from the scene, or even judges or parole officers. These are men and women drawn off the streets of our communities so they can look at these cases.
I have confidence in the judgment of people. I always enjoyed jury trials because I have confidence in the judgment of people. Heck, they elected us; they must know what they're doing.
So I don't think simply to repeal is the answer. I think there's room for improvement, but I'm not one of those who believe simply doing away with it is the answer.
Mr. Hanger: I would probably beg to differ on the point about the people in this country wanting to see the repeal of that section. It would be substantially higher than just a minority,Mr. Minister.
I have just one other question, dealing with an extremely complex and controversial area, which is noted here on your long-term policy agenda. It deals with marital and family status, common law couples, same-sex couples, family and dependant benefits. I asked you this particular question in the House. However, I did not get an answer from you, so I'm going to ask it again today.
Mr. Rock: I gave you a very good answer.
.1040
Mr. Hanger: You gave me an answer but it certainly didn't answer the question.
Mr. Rock: They call it Question Period, not answer period.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Hanger: That is a fact. There's no guarantee on what kind of an answer you're going to get.
Again, the straightforward question I asked dealt with all the discussion papers and policy initiatives related to same-sex benefits. You were asked if you would table those documents. Will you admit that on that particular day you had no intention of pursuing these same-sex benefits, same-sex marriage topics? Are you going to pursue an agenda where same-sex dependent benefits were going to be brought about for same-sex couples? Are you or are you not?
Mr. Rock: No, we're not pursuing an agenda to provide same-sex benefits to same-sex couples, but let me tell you what that refers to, Mr. Hanger.
In another drawer of the desk from which that was taken there's a very large collection of files representing outstanding cases before the -
Mr. Hanger: Can I get a copy of them?
Mr. Rock: Come over to the office sometime and I'll show you around.
There's another collection of files dealing with cases before the Human Rights Commission and cases before the courts, in which as Attorney General I have to appear on behalf of the government. Arguments are made every day of the week by people who are claiming benefits that the present arrangements, depending on the collective agreement or the piece of legislation in question, are unconstitutional or invalid for some other reason.
Through counsel in the department, I have to appear in court to deal with these arguments. We have to develop positions that the government will take, and sometimes we're in very difficult legal circumstances because some of these arguments are very strong.
We do have a section in the department, public law, which includes people who work on these issues, who examine these questions, and who are constantly looking at the policy of the government in relation to these matters. Part of that file has to do with how we respond to these cases and what position we should take as a matter of policy.
Let me go beyond that, because the reference you see there also involves something else. I think it was two years ago that I appeared before either this committee or the human rights committee, and I was asked about same-sex benefits and same-sex marriages and that sort of thing. I made it clear that marriage is not a federal matter; it's a provincial matter, like adoption is.
In terms of benefits, I expressed the view then, to which I still adhere, that it might be better if we stopped talking so much about sex and starting talking instead about people and dependency and relationships. A lot of Canadians live together, but not for reasons having anything to do with sex. They live together because they're friends or because they're sisters or brothers or because they are adults with aging parents. These people have economic, financial, and emotional dependencies that are just as real as those of any other family.
When we start talking about benefits the question arises of whether we should deal with relationships more broadly rather than just focusing on sex. That's what I suggested two years ago. As a result, we've looked at this whole question from a policy perspective. What you see referred to there, at least in part, stands for that work. It's a question of whether, if we took a broader approach to relationships rather than just focusing on sex, we could move to deal with people's needs rather than stirring up a lot of complexity and controversy, I guess you'd say. So that's what that's about.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Now that you've answered the easy questions from the other side of the table you'll get to answer ours.
The first question I had was with respect to the Young Offenders Act and the work the committee has been doing. A lot of the witnesses we've been hearing are expressing their concern about the jurisdictional issue. The Young Offenders Act is federal legislation but the treatment of the offenders is in the provincial facilities, etc.
Has any thought been given to negotiating jurisdictional issues with the provinces in that area? I know that on the constitutional side there's a first ministers conference coming up and the throne speech is making reference to modernizing the federation, etc. Is that an area under review or consideration?
.1045
Mr. Rock: No, it isn't. The division you've described exists because the criminal law-making power is federal but the administration is provincial. That is not under discussion. But I can say in response to your question that I think there is a clear realization on the part of both levels of government that unless we work together in the common cause, we're not going to meet the public's needs and make this system work.
Last month or whenever it was that the ministers were in town for our annual meeting, I said very clearly to them that it's my intention to see, by renegotiating our agreements, that the$150 million or so a year that we give them for young offenders cost-sharing is used preponderantly for alternatives to incarceration rather than custody, as it is now. This is because of my strong belief that we're not doing enough in the Young Offenders Act to deal more effectively with the relatively minor offences through alternatives to incarceration.
There was a very good piece yesterday in the New York Times newspaper about someone who has written widely about youth justice in the United States. I don't know if you had a chance to see it, but one of the points he made was that when we hear about these horrific crimes of violence committed by teenagers, it's a testimony to our own failure to catch the case early. When the first symptoms of the problem arise, intervene effectively and try to save that child and the people he or she eventually hurts. I'd like to see more attention focused on that.
In answer to your question, while we're not talking about reshuffling the powers of the governments in relation to the criminal justice system, we are talking about using the money that Ottawa provides in sharing costs for young offenders more effectively, to intervene creatively and constructively at an earlier stage in the careers of young offenders so that we can turn them around before they escalate into more serious acts of violence.
The only other thing I'll say, if I may, is that this partnership and collaboration has to go beyond just the young offenders system and has to be broader. When I hear news reports of 11-year-olds allegedly caught up in acts of criminal violence, the first question that comes to my mind in asking how we should punish the 11-year-old is, where is the family of that 11-year-old? What kind of setting did that 11-year-old come from? Who is setting standards and enforcing them? Who is providing the model for that child? I have an 11-year-old. I know what they're like. They are pretty small and pretty fragile. But I also know that they're products of their environment. It's all very well to start talking about hammering the 11-year-old, but let's also look at the circumstances from which that child came.
The partnership we have with our provincial colleagues must go beyond the criminal justice system and into the social sphere as well. That's why I mentioned earlier the whole issue of crime prevention. We're not going to make ourselves any safer unless we find out, in the case of each of those 11-year-olds, where they came from, why they acted as they did, and where the adults are who are supposed to be around them to provide support - family, the community, even the neighbourhood. Let's address those issues too.
Mr. DeVillers: So the approach is to deal with federal-provincial agreements as opposed to redistribution of powers.
Mr. Rock: Yes, sir.
Mr. DeVillers: My next question deals with the aboriginal justice initiative, which the report indicates was due to expire in March 1996. I'm just wondering what the status of that is, if there is going to be a renewal, and if so, on what terms or conditions.
Mr. Rock: The last government, to its great credit, initiated in 1991 a five-year project called the aboriginal justice initiative, which found its home in the department. It resulted in money being spent across the country to establish pilot projects and efforts to improve the way aboriginal people are dealt with in our criminal justice system.
While those projects and efforts were helpful, and while they taught us a great deal about what can be done, the fact remains that the criminal justice system, speaking broadly, fails profoundly for aboriginal people in this country. They are vastly overrepresented among the prison populations in Canada. In some prairie provinces, in particular, the statistics are absolutely appalling.
.1050
So something more than just isolated pilot projects or experiments must be done.
A year and a half or two years ago the department retained and brought on board a provincial court judge from Saskatchewan, David Arnot, who took a leave of absence for the purpose. He has been heading our aboriginal justice section, working with provincial counterparts and with the aboriginal leadership to try to plot a course that would address some of these systemic issues.
The result was an aboriginal justice initiative for the next five years, building upon the experience we'd accumulated and directed toward the same objectives. As referred to in the document I've distributed, this involves selecting 20 or 25 aboriginal communities and 8 to12 off-reserve communities, probably mostly cities, to put in place programs and structures that we hope will deal more effectively with aboriginal offenders.
The gatekeepers of the system will remain the same: the judges, the crown attorneys, and the police. We're not talking about two different criminal justice systems, one for aboriginal people and one for everybody else.
What we are talking about is putting in place structures that I think have a future in the mainstream justice system and are particularly needed with aboriginal justice. This has to do with community justice committees, aboriginal justices of the peace, peacemaker courts, healing circles, family conferencing, sentencing circles, and so on. These would take place in an effort to reduce the degree of reoffending among aboriginal people; to respond more effectively than prison can to the problems they present; to reduce the cost of imprisonment for provinces and the federal government; and, at the end of the day, to get aboriginal people back into the community, where they can contribute, rather than having them sealed away in prison cells where they cannot.
We have based these proposals on experience derived not only here in Canada but also in other countries. In New Zealand and in Australia these initiatives have been acted upon with some dramatic results.
I'd be happy to share with you, Mr. DeVillers, and with the committee the particulars of that research and more detail about these proposals if you'd care to see it.
Mr. DeVillers: Good. Thank you.
Going back to the constitutional file and the Bertrand case and the reaction to the government's actions on that, my understanding is that the federal government was added into the litigation as a party by Mr. Bertrand. Is that correct?
Mr. Rock: To use the expression in the code of civil procedure in Quebec, we were mis en cause from the outset. Mr. Bertrand started his litigation last year. We were mis en cause. We chose not to take part in any formal way or to participate in the litigation.
Indeed, we wouldn't be there to this day but for the fact that in April or May a motion was brought by the Attorney General of Quebec that sought to dismiss Mr. Bertrand's litigation.
We had anticipated that the argument would have been based on mootness, that the issues were academic because there was no longer a referendum pending because Bill 1 was no longer before the National Assembly. Rather, the motion was based on different grounds, implicitly on the ground that neither the Constitution nor the courts of Canada could have any role in the process by which Quebec might accede to sovereignty.
In my respectful view, that of course is profoundly wrong in law and in principle. So we intervened in the case in order to respond to that position, which we did before the court during the last couple of weeks. That judgment is now in reserve. There's one more issue to be argued, and then the court will decide.
It's inappropriate for me to talk about the merits, but that explains how we were involved in the litigation and why we decided to become active in it.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): I will now give the floor to Ms. Venne and then Ms. Clancy.
.1055
Ms. Venne: Minister, I'd like to talk about my Bill C-216 for which, unfortunately, you did not condescend to grant me your support but which, on the other hand, has still passed the second reading stage.
Mr. Rock: We've prepared something concerning your bill. I've asked for a copy for myself, but...
Ms. Venne: I hope that your arguments aren't against this bill; I hope they'll be in my favour.
Anyway, the general thrust of my bill, as you know, is that victims should not have to undergo cross-examination by the person who was their aggressor. So the victims should not have to undergo cross-examination by the accused anymore like in the Fabrikant and the de Ferreira cases in Quebec. They are two very well known cases.
As I had the support of the majority of the House, I'd like to know what could be done to convince you and your department that the bill is acceptable. What kind of amendment should be brought for that? It seems to me that the underlying principle can't be considered bad or unacceptable.
Mr. Rock: If I'm not mistaken, the bill has not yet gone to committee.
Ms. Venne: That's right.
Mr. Rock: I think I'd best wait for the committee to examine the bill before taking a position.
Ms. Venne: You've already taken a position against...
Mr. Rock: The House of Commons has voted in favour of the bill, has it not?
Ms. Venne: Yes.
Mr. Rock: It is now going to be brought to the attention of the committee. I do have respect for your role as a committee of Parliament. Perhaps after you've examined the bill my understanding will have been improved. I think my officials will come before the committee during your examination to discuss several of the points that cause some concern for us. I'll take a position after your examination.
Ms. Venne: I'll go to another subject now, the Airbus case. From the accounts in the newspapers, after a dismissal on appeal of their request to suspend procedures, supposedly to get more proof, the Department of Justice lawyers are saying that the case wasn't heard by the right court and that the events didn't happen in Quebec but in Ontario.
What is this procedure? It seems rather strange to me.
Mr. Rock: Apparently, it only concerns one of the numerous defence issues that we suggested the Court should examine. The question arose as to where Mr. Mulroney's alleged defamation of character occurred. Was it in Ontario, or Quebec? It is just a technical point. It is a position advanced but the defence and proposed by the government and the RCMP. It is now up to the Court to decide.
Ms. Venne: Do you not think that normally this point should have been raised at the outset? It should be stated at the outset that it is not the right court. It seems to me that that is the normal way of proceeding, rather than proposing to appear before another court after having exhausted certain courses of action.
[English]
Mr. Rock: Yes, arguably it could be a question of jurisdiction, which should be brought immediately; saying right off the bat, when you're served, this court does not have jurisdiction. But the issue has arisen now, and I think there's nothing improper about raising it at this stage, because the court can still decide the defamation did not take place in a fashion that gives the court jurisdiction. That's up to the court to decide, I suppose.
.1100
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: I would like to ask one last question on Mr. Wappel's Bill, C-205, which is designed to prevent the perpetrator of a crime from profiting from a book, a video or another such work. You know what I'm talking about.
From my understanding of the first hour of debate, your parliamentary secretary does not seem to support the bill. Among other reasons, he said he opposes this bill because... Just a moment, I will tell you exactly how he put it.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Perhaps during the next round, because you've already had almost six minutes.
Ms. Venne: I will just finish my question. I will not be long. The argument the parliamentary secretary used in opposing this bill was the following: the creation of a work, by the perpetrator of the crime, cannot be added to the list of proceeds of crime, because the simple act of writing a book is not in itself a criminal offence. I must admit that that argument seems specious to me. I do not see why the definition of "proceeds of crime" would not include money flowing from the publication of a work recounting a crime.
[English]
Mr. Rock: I regret that what we're talking about there is a technical point of jurisdiction. That's why the parliamentary secretary was obligated to deal with it.
Let me make it clear that we're very much against people who are convicted of crimes profiting from their crimes by publishing books or making movies and that sort of thing. We're very much against it. But as lawyers, we're obligated to look at the question of whether we have jurisdiction to regulate that activity. The conclusion to which we've come is that constitutionally it's done more effectively by the province, not by the federal government. It's a matter that relates to property and civil rights.
But in order to demonstrate our desire to have these matters prohibited, what we've done is proposed that the uniform law committee, which meets every year and which includes representatives of both federal and provincial governments, examine a standard or model statute that we would encourage provinces to adopt and that would prohibit profiteering by criminals on the basis you've described. Some provinces, such as Ontario, have already taken steps to prohibit it. Others have not. What we're bringing to the table in August is a draft statute which would serve as a model. We're going to encourage provinces to adopt it. We think if they do so we will then have achieved the purpose in a proper constitutional way. We are very worried about trampling on the proper jurisdiction of the province.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: But that is not what I meant. I was talking about the definition of "proceeds of crime" which falls under the Criminal Code. That's what I was talking about.
Mr. Rock: We have jurisdiction over proceeds of crime, but as Mr. Kirkby said in his speech, our professional opinion is that money earned from a book, for example, is not a proceed of crime. It is the fruit of the author's efforts, which is under provincial, not federal jurisdiction. We may perhaps be wrong, but that is our opinion.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Your time is up. Ms. Clancy.
[English]
Ms Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Minister, I'm certainly glad somebody is protecting Quebec's rights around here.
I'd like to ask you about your plans in part III of your expenditure plan for changes to the criminal law in relation to access to complainants' records by accused and defence counsel in sexual assault and similar cases. I know you know the concerns voiced by a lot of different people, perhaps most particularly by women's groups working in the field of assisting victims of sexual assault. I wonder if you could tell us a bit about this initiative and what you're hoping to do.
.1105
Mr. Rock: I want to begin by saying that when I broached the subject with provincial and territorial ministers in early May, there was unanimous support for legislative action that went beyond the judgments of the court in O'Connor and Behariell. As you pointed out, this is a matter of grave concern to groups and organizations that work with women who are the victims of violence.
In June 1994, I had the first of what have now become annual meetings with representatives of front-line workers in dealing with violence by men against women. They told me at that time that this problem was urgent, that their organizations, which had limited and reducing budgets and which were on the front lines trying to help women who are victims of violence, through counselling and otherwise, were squandering their scarce dollars appearing in court trying to resist subpoenas served by defence counsel to get at confidential records rather than spending them serving the women who were most in need.
We examined the issue. We consulted with every imaginable interest - defence counsel, crown prosecutors, provincial authorities, the women who run these centres, judges - and we came to the conclusion that the problem is indeed very real.
We awaited the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the O'Connor and Behariell cases, because the issues were raised there. Those cases resulted in an affirmation of the principle that such records can indeed be obtained for the purposes of the defence. The courts saw fit to establish certain tests by which applications for access to such records were to be determined and in a variety of other ways elaborated upon the procedure that to the court was appropriate.
We concluded, with great respect to the court, that the judicial solution was inadequate to meet the challenge presented in this instance. We have resolved to prepare legislation to deal with it.
The legislation we have in mind, which I hope will be introduced shortly, will obviously speak for itself, but I can tell the committee that yes, you can expect to see the creation of tests. There will not be an absolute privilege for such records. We will not say that access cannot be had. We will respect the right to make full answer in defence, but at the same time we want to balance the equality and privacy rights of the victim against those of the accused, and that's not always an easy thing to do.
We will include a preamble to make clear what our purpose is. We will refer in the preamble to the equality rights of victims of violence by men. We will establish impermissible grounds for access, such as a fishing expedition to see whether something might be there which might go to the credibility of the victim. We will require the court to be satisfied, before looking at the documents at all, that there is a permissible and appropriate ground for looking at them, having to do with the probative value and the established relevance of the record.
After the records are examined, we will require the court to permit access by the parties only to those parts of the record that clearly are relevant and probative on the issues alive in the proceeding. We will limit the application for access to trial judges and forbid it at the preliminary, and we will require the same procedure to be pursued when the record is in the hands of the crown attorney as when it is in the hands of third parties.
Under the present state of the law, with Stinchcombe, the obligation to provide production makes it the Crown's obligation to furnish these records to the defence counsel. The legislation we propose will require the same process to be followed when the records are in the hands of the Crown as if they're in the hands of a third party.
All of that is for the purpose of establishing that while there obviously can be circumstances in which such records are relevant and probative, they cannot be assumed to be so. There should be a sound reason for getting access to them. The process by which access is gained should respect not only the right of the accused person but also the right of the victim to privacy and equality before the law.
.1110
Ms Clancy: When you say soon, do you mean before the summer, after the summer, or am I getting too...?
Mr. Rock: It may be before the summer. We'll do our best. I think the House leader was talking about adjourning the week of June 21, 22, or 23, so there's not a lot of House time left. We're taking two days off next week.
Ms Clancy: For what?
Mr. Rock: A very good reason.
Ms Clancy: That wasn't one of my questions.
I guess the other thing is a case I know you're familiar with in Nova Scotia, where the situation also brought in the medical board, which I know, of course, is under provincial jurisdiction. When you talk about the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim, there is also to a degree the right of the professional person whose records might be subpoenaed and the fact that there can be a response from the professional body. Have you taken that into consideration as well? What sort of protection is there, in a sense, for the person whose records are being subpoenaed?
Mr. Rock: One element of the proposed changes will add words to a subpoena in those circumstances.
First of all, the subpoenas in such cases will be available only from a provincial court judge, not from a justice of the peace. Second, the subpoenas in such cases will include words that notify the record-holder they're not to disclose or give up the records unless and until a court determines it's appropriate. Then of course they will have the right to appear before the court and ask to be heard on the question.
Ms Clancy: I guess I'm thinking about indemnification, in a sense. It would be a very difficult situation if we passed a law that set up a situation where all other things being satisfied the records were subpoenaed, and then the medical board or whoever, whatever governing body, which is under provincial jurisdiction, was able to come back at the practitioner, the expert.
Mr. Rock: I see.
Ms Clancy: I can leave that with you.
Mr. Rock: Yes, if you would. It seems to me it may be a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Your point is that even if the court determined the record should be divulged, the professional authorities might have a grievance against the professional for having given it up.
Ms Clancy: That's exactly what happened in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Rock: That's a civil liability issue, and as the deputy points out, it may be better dealt with in the province.
Ms Clancy: That's still something we could be creating.
Mr. Rock: That's true enough. I'll consider what you've said.
Ms Clancy: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Now, since we've set new precedents on this committee, the Reform Party will have their eight-minute round. Will that be you, Mr. Ramsay?
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just wonderful to see you chairing this meeting this morning.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): That's just so I can't comment on your comments.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Minister, welcome to our committee this morning.
This morning you have expressed comments on more than one issue that touched on your sensitivity about encroaching into provincial jurisdiction. You've used that, if I could use the term, as a justification or an excuse not to support the bill Madame Venne referred to.
In Bill C-68 there seem to be clear provisions allowing the federal government to initiate proceedings under the Criminal Code. This appears to be a clear encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. Would you agree?
Mr. Rock: Which provisions do you have in mind, Mr. Ramsay?
Mr. Ramsay: I don't have the bill with me, and in fact this has just come up as a result of your comments expressing a sensitivity to legislation that does encroach upon provincial jurisdiction, but Bill C-68 clearly allows the federal government to initiate proceedings under the Criminal Code which have been a traditional jurisdiction of the provincial government. If you're not aware of that, then I'll go to another matter.
Mr. Rock: It's not that I'm not aware of it. I thought you had a particular clause in mind.
The Firearms Act and the changes to the Criminal Code included in Bill C-68 were all enacted under the exercise of the federal criminal law power. As I said, on past occasions there has been no doubt in my mind it has been valid in terms of the legislative jurisdiction of the national government.
We don't interfere in provincial jurisdictions simply by creating criminal offences. That's what we do in the Criminal Code. In Bill C-68 we added to the offences in the code. We added to the penalties in the code. In terms of the Firearms Act, we established a regime for the regulation of firearms.
.1115
I'm missing your point, perhaps.
Mr. Ramsay: What I'm talking about is that section in the Criminal Code - and maybeMr. Mosley can help us out - that allows for the initiation of prosecutions under the Criminal Code by the federal government. If that's not recognized, then I'll move on to another point, because I do not have the act with me.
There is a provision that allows... In fact, I spoke to a professor from Toronto who appeared before the Senate committee on this very issue. He recognized that, and did not think it was sufficient to violate the tradition and custom as recognized in the reference of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional case, but thought it was there nevertheless.
Now, if you recognize that, we'll continue with it. If you don't recognize it, then I'll move on to something else.
Mr. Rock: I must say I don't, but Mr. Mosley might. If we don't, I'd be happy to hear from you after the meeting. If you drop me a note about the section you have in mind, I'll provide you with a response directly when you have the act in front of you.
Mr. Mosley: The only thing I can think of is the provision that allows the Attorney General of Canada to appoint a chief provincial firearms officer where the attorney general of a province chooses not to do so.
Mr. Ramsay: I'll bring that particular section to your attention. We have so far to go and so little time.
I want to follow up on what Madame Venne originally touched upon - that is, this situation with Mr. Ted Thompson. You have addressed the apparent impropriety of Mr. Ted Thompson. My question is, why didn't you initiate an examination of Judge Isaac's action by a formal complaint to the judicial council when by your own statements in the House you recognized that this occurred as a result of his initiation? He initiated the meeting with Mr. Thompson. Why is it you're initiating an investigation into the activity of only one partner in that event when it was initiated by the chief justice? Do you not feel it is your duty as the Attorney General of Canada to ensure that the perception of action to deal with this very serious matter is being initiated from your office?
Mr. Rock: No, I don't think it's necessary for me to initiate that in order for the public to be satisfied that it's being dealt with. I think it's important that the public sees that we're acting with reference to the Department of Justice and our own officials and how they behaved. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not the only one who has the right to make a complaint to the judicial council.
In addition to that, two things. I have the power under subsection 63(1) to initiate an inquiry, but I don't think this is a case for such an inquiry, at least of what I know so far. Furthermore, I now know that the council will be considering it, or at least the judicial conduct committee will be considering it. So it's being done.
I think that's sufficient to meet the public's interest in accountability and responsiveness. I don't think it requires me to initiate a complaint to the council. Frankly, I have been focusing on our own concerns, the litigation first and foremost - we want to save those cases - and the way we deal with our own officials.
For what it's worth, that's how I see it, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. We will pursue this at another time.
I want to touch very quickly on section 745 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Nunziata's bill has been passed by the House. Over 70 of your own colleagues, including one of your cabinet colleagues, supported that bill at second reading. It's been lying dormant here for over a year and a half, and it's not moving forward.
.1120
Clifford Olson will be appearing, or at least he will have the option to initiate proceedings under section 745, in August of this year. Do you intend to allow that to happen?
Mr. Rock: First of all, I want to make clear we don't legislate in relation to individuals. I don't want to comment on Clifford Olson or his case, because if he does bring an application, that's for the courts to determine. I'm not going to comment on it.
I can tell you that, as I've always said, I think changes should be made to section 745. I am working with my caucus and with my cabinet in the process of preparing legislation to deal with those changes. If time permits, we will produce that legislation before the end of June.
But I'm not legislating because of an individual case or because of any particular person in the prisons. That's not the way we do business in this country. We legislate for policy reasons. There are sound policy reasons for making changes in section 745, and we'll bring them forward as soon as we can.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): There are eight minutes remaining in this meeting, so I'll give four to the Liberals and then four to the Bloc if they get back, or to you, Mr. Hanger, if they don't.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Minister, on page 24 of the part III expenditure plan it's indicated that the department is considering Official Secrets Act amendments. I'm wondering if you could inform the committee of what these would be.
Mr. Rock: May I invite the deputy to deal with that matter?
Mr. DeVillers: Surely.
Mr. George Thomson (Deputy Minister, Department of Justice): Thank you, Minister.
As you know, in the last two or three years some cases have come up that have raised the question of whether the act, which has not been amended in many decades, ought to be looked at to determine whether it is effective legislation in light of today's realities. So a study is going on that includes Justice as well as other departments, looking at whether or not amendments to the act should take place.
There is no fixed time to report back on that work, but the work is under way and will be coming before ministers in the next period of time.
Mr. DeVillers: Do you have any information on what items are under review - which provisions of the act?
Mr. Thomson: Questions have been raised with respect to whether, for example, the breadth of the act in its present wording, in terms of what it covers, is so broad and vague in some areas that it would not survive a challenge under the charter, which demands more clarity with respect to who's covered by the act and what kinds of behaviour are covered by the act.
There is a question that the present act could be challenged under the charter unless we do some work to define which particular people are subject to the requirements. Should there be somewhat different expectations of people who work specifically for organizations that are engaged in security work as opposed to those who do broader work within government? Is it important to make some distinctions in that area?
Some have raised the question of whether there ought to be a clearer public interest defence within the act that might be looked at for those who are challenged under the act. Some have raised the question of whether there ought to be ways to allow internal concerns to be raised by persons who work in the security area so there isn't a need or even a felt need to go public with information they feel is questionable.
All of those are examples of the issues we're looking at.
There also are problems relating to how information that is subject to security protection is used in other court proceedings. When a court proceeding is under way and one or other of the parties wants to use that information, should we be looking at better protecting that information when it's used, while still making the parts of it that are important for the case accessible? That's another example.
The United States and Great Britain have done some interesting work over the last decade in amending their legislation, and we're looking at those examples.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.
Madame Venne, do you have a question?
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: I will leave the Minister alone for now, but just for now. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Mr. Hanger.
.1125
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I have just one question, and then it's over to him.
Mr. Minister, we've asked you about what the existing situation is with regard to the federal-provincial financial agreements, particularly with regard to the firearms legislation pre-dating Bill C-68. Could you advise the committee of what the standing is on those contracts?
Mr. Rock: May I invite Mr. Mosley to give a description? I know there are still some issues outstanding, but I don't know the current status. Saskatchewan is one, I think.
Mr. Mosley: There is a total of twelve agreements, and I believe we now have six signed by both sides and six to be completed. These are the agreements for up to and including the current fiscal year. The issues that remain under discussion with the jurisdictions relate simply to the differences about the amount of money payable to the province for the operation of the chief provincial firearms officer's office or related questions of that nature. We expect to have the remaining six resolved in the near future.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, and thank you, committee members, for being so orderly...almost.
Oh, Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Hanger: Yes. I have my question here.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Okay, you have only one minute. I spoke too soon.
Mr. Hanger: Thank you.
I'm looking at your long-term policy agenda, Mr. Minister, and one initiative listed is HIV blood testing. It referred to sexual assault, to HIV/AIDS testing to assist sexual assault survivors. Under the strategic comments, you made it clear that you have decided not to proceed with any legislative change. Why?
Mr. Rock: About a year and a half ago Margo B. came forward. She is the woman in Quebec who was the victim of a sexual assault, and she, I think, sought a court order requiring the alleged assailant to be tested. She was turned down. I think that's how the issue came forward. Anyway, she very publicly and very courageously brought forward the point that a person who is a victim of a sexual assault should have the right to have the assailant tested then and there, so the person can know whether he or she may be HIV-infected or may get some other disease.
I met with Margo B. and her husband, promised to examine it carefully, and did so. We worked with physicians, including people from the Department of Health.
The conclusion to which we came - and I met with her again and told her about this or I called her and sent the conclusion to her - was that quite apart from the law, as a matter of medicine the best way for me to find out if I'm infected after a sexual assault is to test me, not the assailant, and to test me periodically and continuously.
If you test the assailant you could get a false negative, in which case you have given the victim false hope. You could get a false positive, in which case you're terrifying the victim needlessly. You can't rely on what might come out of a test of the assailant, and even if the assailant tests positive you don't know if that assailant has infected the victim. So the doctors - not the lawyers - said the best and wisest course is to have the victim tested continuously.
I have some information which the Department of Health put together for me on this point, and I'd be happy to share it with you if you'd like. That's the conclusion they came to.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Hanger: I'd like to ask one more question.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): No. Your time's over and done with.
Mr. Rock: I'm happy to answer another question if Mr. Hanger has a follow-up.
Mr. Hanger: It's not so much a follow-up, although I do have follow-ups on that particular question. I have another one here. I had directed it to you in the House, however, you weren't in the House on that particular day, and as a result the Prime Minister answered the question.
And if I could seek a reply...it's a complex situation, but the answer is very simple.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I'm sorry, Mr. Hanger. I was very lenient with people, and I allowed them the time. The minister and all of us said this meeting was going to end at 11:30 a.m. I don't know what your question is - I have no idea - but your time is over with.
Mr. Hanger: Might I appeal to the minister for another five minutes?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): No, actually. I'm the chair of this committee. It is not the minister who has the prerogative. You can ask him in the hallway or you can ask him in Question Period.
It's 11:30 a.m. This meeting is over.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Rock: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Deputy Minister.
The meeting is adjourned.