Bill C-32 (Historical)

Victims Bill of Rights Act

An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts

This enactment enacts the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which specifies that victims of crime have the following rights:
(a) the right to information about the criminal justice system, the programs and services that are available to victims of crime and the complaint procedures that are available to them when their rights have been infringed or denied;
(b) the right to information about the status of the investigation and the criminal proceedings, as well as information about reviews while the offender is subject to the corrections process, or about hearings after the accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit to stand trial, and information about the decisions made at those reviews and hearings;
(c) the right to have their security and privacy considered by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system;
(d) the right to protection from intimidation and retaliation;
(e) the right to request testimonial aids;
(f) the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by authorities in the criminal justice system that affect the victim’s rights under this Act and to have those views considered;
(g) the right to present a victim impact statement and to have it considered;
(h) the right to have the courts consider making, in all cases, a restitution order against the offender; and
(i) the right to have a restitution order entered as a civil court judgment that is enforceable against the offender if the amount owing under the restitution order is not paid.
The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also specifies
(a) the periods during which the rights apply;
(b) the individuals who may exercise the rights;
(c) the complaint mechanism for victims and the requirements for federal departments to create complaint mechanisms; and
(d) how the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is to be interpreted.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) align the definition of “victim” with the definition of “victim” in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights;
(b) protect the privacy and security interests of complainants and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences and ensure that they are informed of their right to be represented by legal counsel;
(c) broaden the conduct to which the offence of intimidation of justice system participants applies;
(d) expand the list of factors that a court may take into consideration when determining whether an exclusion order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice;
(e) make testimonial aids more accessible to vulnerable witnesses;
(f) enable witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;
(g) make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory on application;
(h) provide that an order for judicial interim release must indicate that the safety and security of every victim was taken into consideration;
(i) require the court to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor in certain circumstances;
(j) add victim impact statement forms to assist victims to convey their views at sentencing proceedings and at hearings held by Review Boards;
(k) provide that the acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims and to the community is a sentencing objective;
(l) clarify the provisions relating to victim impact statements;
(m) allow for community impact statements to be considered for all offences;
(n) provide that victims may request a copy of a judicial interim release order, probation order or a conditional sentence order;
(o) specify that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed;
(p) provide a form for requesting a restitution order; and
(q) provide that courts must consider the making of a restitution order in all cases, and that, in multiple victim cases, a restitution order may specify the amounts owed to each victim and designate the priority of payment among the victims.
The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to provide that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused. It also amends that Act to add a new subsection to govern the questioning of witnesses over the age of 14 years in certain circumstances.
This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to
(a) align the definition of “victim” with the definition of “victim” in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights;
(b) permit victims to have access to information about the offender’s progress in relation to the offender’s correctional plan;
(c) permit victims to be shown a current photograph of the offender at the time of the offender’s conditional release or the expiration of the offender’s sentence;
(d) permit the disclosure of information to victims concerning an offender’s deportation before the expiration of the offender’s sentence;
(e) permit the disclosure to victims of an offender’s release date, destination and conditions of release, unless the disclosure would have a negative impact on public safety;
(f) allow victims to designate a representative to receive information under the Act and to waive their right to information under the Act;
(g) require that the Correctional Service of Canada inform victims about its victim-offender mediation services;
(h) permit victims who do not attend a parole hearing to listen to an audio recording of the hearing;
(i) provide for the provision to victims of decisions of the Parole Board of Canada regarding the offender; and
(j) require, when victims have provided a statement describing the harm, property damage or loss suffered by them as the result of the commission of an offence, that the Parole Board of Canada impose victim non-contact or geographic restrictions as conditions of release, where reasonable and necessary, to protect the victims in relation to an offender who is the subject of a long-term supervision order.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that may be so, but you had already given the floor to the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I would ask you to look at the record to see whether he already had the floor. I do not see anywhere in the bylaws that there is any reason to take the floor away from him.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

During the request for questions and comments, it would have been a government member's turn. I had not seen this hon. member. I had started to call the name of another hon. member when the other hon. member brought to my attention that it was in fact his turn.

The Chair will review the tape to see if there is a need to come back to clarify this. At this point, the floor goes to the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

She was lamenting the fact that the government has not sent this bill to committee in order to hear from experts. It is very important to hear the opinions and comments of experts from across the country. That is why we do not want to add to her filibuster on this bill. It is very important for this bill to get to committee.

Perhaps the hon. member could explain why the NDP wants to have this filibuster. This is going to delay the arrival of witnesses and experts who will add their views to this important debate to improve things for victims in Canada.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I have not had the time to look up the definition of filibuster. This is the first time I have spoken to this bill in the House of Commons. I do have the right to speak freely and democratically to a bill.

I quite like my colleague and I am sure that he does very good work as a member of Parliament, but I am entitled to speak to a bill for the first time in the House of Commons.

I look forward to studying this bill in committee. However, before it is sent there, a number of members in the House have to be given the chance to debate and talk about the bill of rights on behalf of their constituents. It would be nice if a Conservative could do the same on behalf of their constituents as well.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the member for Scarborough Centre, one of the greatest fans of demagoguery in the House, will ask a question at some point in this debate.

As usual, we see that this bill is a symbolic gesture by the government. It is not a substantive bill. This is obvious from the evidence given by the mother of a young girl who was murdered. The mother told us that the changes proposed by the government would only fuel the desire for revenge. From a psychological point of view, it does not help victims go through the healing process.

Could my colleague comment on and tell us more about why this bill will not help victims and about the fact that this is instead a symbolic gesture?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think I was really clear in my speech.

The biggest problems in the current justice system are access to justice and wait times. The longer victims wait in the justice system, the more they are victimized each time, and the longer they are victimized, the more difficult it will be to start the healing process.

I would like to repeat for my colleague what Manitoba's attorney general said:

We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it. [I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable — like Manitoba's support services office — then it is an empty gesture.

His remarks were echoed by the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. We have to give resources to the people on the ground and help them implement the rights. It is well and good to talk about rights. However, we have to do what it takes to ensure that these rights are enforced.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would like to clarify the point of order raised by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

In fact, I have confirmed that when the House goes to questions and comments, it is at the discretion of the Chair as to who has the floor. As all hon. members will know, there is a standard rotation in this place that is followed as much as possible by the Chair. There are times when the Chair does not see a member rise, often in the corners or at the far end of the chamber, but the Chair is entirely within the right, after he has started to say a name or in fact has completed saying a name, to realize that it should have been another member. The Chair can at that point redirect the floor to the member in the rotation. In this case, particularly given that the hon. member who had the floor had stated in her speech that she wanted to receive a question from a government member, that was also part of my justification at that point.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.

I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.

To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:

Just words, always words...
Nothing but words
Words, words, words

That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.

For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.

Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.

For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.

Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone.

Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.

At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.

We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.

Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.

A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.

I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or moneys that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.

I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.

We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.

I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.

The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.

It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.

Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.

Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:

I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that

He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a 2009 social survey, approximately 7.4 million Canadians—a little more than one quarter of the population—aged 15 and older were victims of crime.

I am going to ask these questions because I am very worried. One quarter of the population has been victimized by crime. In our society, we say that we are open-minded, we have crime prevention measures and we help people. We also put criminals in jail. Then, how is it that one quarter of our population is in this situation? Do we do enough prevention? Does the government's bill provide for a system to ensure that people commit fewer crimes?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would like to thank the hon. member for asking it.

The Conservative government always focuses on punishment, not prevention. Prevention can take many forms, such as education and training or tackling poverty, establishing a national mental health strategy or implementing various measures that would create better socio-economic conditions and allow people to live a dignified, decent life. That will reduce the chances that they will choose a life of crime. We know that living conditions are directly linked to criminality.

The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said that it is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but that doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime. We also need to be proactive so that they do not find themselves in criminal situations. The government needs to take a much more nuanced and balanced position by recognizing people's social rights.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He worked very hard, as we can see by the quality of his speech. He works extremely hard in his riding and that shows in the good things his constituents have to say about him. I commend him on that.

In his speech he mentioned that there is a lack of resources, money and means to help people exercise the rights proposed in this bill. I would go even further. The Conservatives have been campaigning on this famous bill of rights for eight years. It was a ghost, a mirage, a cloud, but nothing tangible. Finally, things are in black and white.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have repeatedly proposed measures in public without putting anything down on paper. That is something we see far too often.

I would like my colleague to explain why it took so long for the bill to be introduced. Again, it contains some serious flaws. What seems to be missing from the Conservatives' consultation process?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and also congratulate her on the work she does in her riding, which is appreciated just as much, if not more, than my own.

The government dragged its feet on this bill for the same reason it did so with the firearms registry. It wants to please the Conservative voter base, which likes hearing this type of rhetoric. As long as the problem is not solved, the government can continue to say that it cares about the problem and is going to do something about it.

In this case, the government really drew out the debate for purely electoral and partisan reasons without ever really making victims' rights a priority.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 18, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?