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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am honoured to be here to take part in this important debate, second reading of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

As members know, this bill is to create a Canadian victims bill of rights and entrench the rights of victims into federal law for the first time in Canadian history.

Victims of crime have been an important priority for our government since our election in 2006, and our contributions to improving the victim’s role in our justice system is well known and well documented. It is our contention that there are numerous ways, which we will present through the victims bill of rights, to continue down the path of enhancing our justice system and the victim’s role in that system. The creation of the federal victims strategy as well as the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, in 2007, are examples of our government's commitment.

Further, the allocation of $120 million as well as $10 million additionally for child advocacy centres in 20 locations throughout the country are examples of victims' programs specifically, as well as other numerous victims' law reforms and criminal justice reforms intended to enhance the experience of victims in the law.

Last year, our government promised to enhance victims’ rights by entrenching or embedding their rights in a single law at the federal level. We are delivering on that promise through the creation of clear statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution for victims of crime in Canada.

I want to unpack these concepts in more detail in a moment. Before I do, I want to emphasize again the inclusive effort to hear from Canadians.

My earliest days as Minister of Justice were spent consulting broadly and hearing directly from Canadians. In fact, we heard from more than 500 stakeholders through online and in-person consultations held across the country while developing this legislation. Most importantly, we heard from victims of crime themselves. Advocates, provincial and territorial officials, organizations, criminal justice associations, and criminal justice professionals, crown and defence counsel, law enforcement—all have provided views on this important legislation, participants all, and the Canadian victims bill of rights reflects that input, particularly those of provincial and territorial officials who have the important role and task of enforcement.

As well, we received a great deal of information and input during these consultations, specific to the reforms contemplated in federal, provincial, and territorial forums. Best practices from international, provincial, and territorial victims' legislation and programs were also contemplated. After much and thorough consultation and collaboration into this bill, we believe we have struck a very good balance.

I also want to recognize that each province and territory very much had that input, but we also drew from their own victims' services legislation unique to their provincial and territorial reality. All provinces and territories have legislation for victims of crime, which in some cases includes provisions worded as “rights”, such as a right to information, a right to consideration of personal safety, and a right to respectful treatment. The federal bill would not impede in any way existing provincial or territorial legislation but would, in fact, complement it or provide cohesion, while respecting constitutional divisions of power. It is important that we have this continuing and cohesive effort in building on the best of all efforts, across the country, to make the expression and inclusion of victims' rights more respectful, more user-friendly, and improve the lives of victims and their experience in our justice system.

Mr. Speaker, every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard. That is why we have included a broad definition of victim in the Canadian victims bill of rights. All individuals directly affected by an offence in a physical, emotional or economic way would be considered victims.

The bill would also enable individuals to act on behalf of victims who are deceased or who are incapable of exercising their rights.

Again, the rights proposed in this bill apply to victims involved in the Canadian criminal justice system. I think it is important here to read specifically from the bill that definition of victim:

It states:

“victim” means an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence.

Clearly, the intention here is to protect Canadian citizens or permanent residents who are abroad but were victimized in Canada, who could also invoke their rights. Victims who are in Canada, or Canadian citizens or permanent residents could also invoke their rights in a case where they were victimized abroad, but where Canadian officials are investigating or prosecuting the offence in Canada. These provisions would ensure a broad, inclusive application of the rights in circumstances where there is a clear link between the victim, the crime, and the criminal justice system here in Canada.

Fully implemented, the bill would also extend rights to every stage of the criminal justice process: during the investigation and prosecution of an offence; during the corrections process; during the conditional release process, or parole; and while there are proceedings in the courts and before review boards in respect of an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, or who is unfit to stand trial. However, the bill would also provide that the application of the rights cannot interfere with the police or crown prosecution's discretion and must be reasonable in the circumstances. In other words, this is a rubicon that we did not cross. Going back into the archives, this was in keeping with a parliamentary report entitled, “A Voice, Not a Veto”. That statement encapsulates the intent here.

Access to information was perhaps the most identified need by victims. Victims themselves, their advocates, and federal ombudsmen for victims of crime, and criminal justice professionals, such as the crown and police, often highlighted this need to ensure that basic information was flowing to victims and their loved ones.

Victims of crime seek information about the criminal justice system generally and their role in it. They also want specific information about their case and the decisions made by criminal justice professionals as the case moves forward.

This right to information would articulate that a victim has the right to meaningful information that affects them, such as conditions of release that pertain specifically to the accused in the case, or something as basic as the time, place, and date of proceedings taking place before the court that could impact on the victim. This would also include information about the criminal justice system, victims services programs, outcomes of criminal investigations and proceedings, and the status of an offender in the correctional system. The Criminal Code amendments that are proposed to implement this right would include the ability of the victim to receive copies of bail and conditional sentence or probation orders, physically ensuring that the victim is in possession of that information.

In addition, the bill proposes important changes to the Criminal Code provisions for plea negotiations, which is one of the more controversial elements, I suspect. For murder or any serious personal injury offence, the court would be required to ask the prosecutor if the victim had been notified of a plea bargain. For any other offence with a term of imprisonment of over five years, the victim could request to be notified of a plea bargain. The amendment does not give victims a veto over plea bargains. However, given the significant portion of cases with guilty pleas that are resolved in this fashion, this right to information would benefit a large number of victims at a key stage of the criminal justice process. I would suggest it would prevent any shock or further trauma to a victim to have that information in advance of any public announcement.

In order to help facilitate a victim's access to more information about available programs and services, one of the amendments in the bill would also require that Correctional Services Canada inform victims about the availability of victim-offender mandated mediation services.

Lastly, in order to enhance the information provided to victims, our government would create a single government website to make information about the Canadian victims bill of rights available to all Canadians and victims of crime.

Victim safety, including the enhancement of protection measures for victims, was also mentioned frequently by victims, their advocates, and professionals during the consultations. The desire to feel protected, safe from recrimination or retaliation, is an important right to recognize. Currently, there are numerous provisions in federal law to prevent or respond to harm to victims, but the creation of this right would build on a strong foundation and Canada's positive international reputation for the treatment of vulnerable victims, including in the courtroom.

The right to protection ensures that victims have their security and privacy considered in their interactions with criminal justice system officials. Proposed amendments to the code would broaden the availability of such things as testimonial aids, which are commonly known as “screens”, or closed-circuit television cameras to allow the victim to testify from a neighbouring room. This is also specifically to help protect victims from intimidation or retaliation throughout the proceedings and to provide that victims' safety and security would be taken into consideration through various means when making bail orders, for example, or when the offender were being released from custody.

Victims would be provided with access to a photograph of the offender at the time of the conditional release or end of sentence. This is a very practical and, I suggest, compassionate means to give victims information as to how they need to govern themselves or take protective measures. This is an important change for victims, and just one of the many changes that we would make to implement a victim's right to protection.

This right is strongly supported by many stakeholders, and victims identified this as an important need during the consultations, and we have listened. The benefits are numerous.

In order to provide meaningful participation and to give victims the sense that the criminal justice system will continue to respect their concerns and those of their loved ones, we wanted to underscore during the consultation that meaningful participation is also embedded in the bill. This is about recognizing the impact of victimization on the lives of victims and to help them understand what is sometimes a very complicated, foreign, difficult, and stressful process. The right to participation would allow the victims to convey views and to have those views properly considered by decision-makers when decisions are being made that affect them. This would be implemented through measures to clarify and broaden the scope of the victim and community impact statement provisions in the Criminal Code. Victims of crime have told us that they would support improvements to the victim and community impact statement provisions of the code.

For example, in this proposal, victims would be able to have a support person close to them while presenting their statement or community impact statement, and would be able to bring a drawing or photo or proximity of their loved one to the courtroom when presenting this statement. Again, this is a very compassionate, open-hearted way to allow the victim to draw comfort from proximity through these items. We have amendments to the Criminal Code that would clarify that a judge should consider those parts of a victim impact statement necessary to determine an appropriate statement.

When visiting a child advocacy centre, I saw something similar in intent. That was allowing children, for example, to have a pet or a stuffed animal, something that provided them comfort, with them during interviews with the police. Again, this emulates that same intention to provide individuals, child victims, comfort during what is inevitably a very stressful situation.

Also entrenching in this bill is the provision of guidance to victims on the creation of their victim impact statement through a mandatory form. These amendments would ensure that victims' voices were truly heard in the process.

The bill is also proposing important amendments to the purposes and principles of sentencing, to increase consideration of victims' views in that process. First, the bill proposes to reinforce the sentencing objective of denunciation in paragraph 718(a) of the code, by specifying that it is not only the criminal conduct that is being denounced, but also the harm to the victim and communities that has been caused by that conduct, which is a reality, I would suggest.

Second, the bill proposes to reinforce the sentencing principle of restraint in paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code that requires courts to consider alternatives to imprisonment where it is reasonable to do so.

Adding a requirement that the court also consider the harm done to victims and to the community would help to ensure there is a proper balance between the rights of offenders and those who have been victimized by offenders' behaviour. This would also bring sentencing principles in line with similar changes to the objectives of sentencing in paragraph 718(a).

In order to assist victims and allow them to choose how they would like to participate in the corrections and conditional release process, proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would allow registered victims to designate a representative to receive information on their behalf or waive their right to access to information. We know that in some cases victims want nothing more to do with the process after the victimization has occurred, and I would suggest that another general collateral benefit to this bill is that it would give victims more choice and control over their lives in a very stressful period.

We have listened very carefully to the views of many people who work in the justice system, including, as I mentioned, provinces and territories, and we are responding to some of the criticisms of the bill. For example, some have said that the bill does not propose to make victims a party to the criminal trial or create a right to receive legal aid. It is our view that these two items would create additional complications and potential delays, which is completely counterintuitive to what we are attempting to achieve here. Further delays or complications are very much in our minds as we bring this bill forward.

That is one of the great complaints of many in the system, that the time it took to proceed through the courts caused greater re-victimization. Therefore, we have very much intended to include measures that would reduce the delays in criminal proceedings without in any way contributing to the type of delay that we know is sometimes endemic in courts in the country.

The bill’s proposed right to participation seeks to strengthen existing and successful approaches that provide opportunities for victims to actively participate in the criminal justice system, and contribute to more effective decision-making by police, crown prosecutors and judges.

Victims of crime have expressed significant concerns about the financial burden that often places them in real hardship. Many have reported that as a result of the crime, they were unable to work and yet faced significant out-of-pocket expenses to continue attending criminal proceedings or to receive counselling. In 2008, a Department of Justice study estimated that the tangible and intangible social and economic costs of Criminal Code offences in Canada were approaching approximately $100 billion annually, and approximately 83% of those costs were borne by victims themselves.

There has been discussion about crime rates falling in Canada. In fact, there are over two million crimes reported annually and, sadly, one of the more shocking figures is that there has been a 4% increase in child sex offences, offences against children, our most vulnerable.

The bill will help to alleviate the financial burden of crime for victims by enabling victims to seek a restitution order, which obliges the offender to pay the victim for costs incurred as a result of the offence.

Specifically, this bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider restitution orders for all offences, to specify that an offender's ability to pay is not determinative in ordering restitution and to create, for accuracy, a mandatory form to help victims identify and claim their losses. As well, proposed amendments would specify that when any part of a restitution order is not paid, victims can have that order enforced as a civil debt.

Victims would be provided with assistance to help them enforce restitution orders through several program measures. For example, an electronic tool kit for victims would give them easier access to greater information about restitution; and financing and funding would be made available to the provinces and territories to develop their own restitution programs to help victims collect on those orders. This approach would enhance awareness and enforcement of restitution and provide victims with information and financial support. We know as well that many provinces and territories, in fact the majority, have the fine option program that will allow offenders to at least make some restitution to society at large, where they do community-type service.

In order to give meaningful effect to victims' rights by all players in our criminal justice system, our government is proposing that this bill have quasi-constitutional status. This would mean that the Canadian victims bill of rights would prevail over other federal statutes, with the exception of the Constitution Act, which includes the Charter of Rights and other quasi-constitutional statutes within our legal system, such as the Official Languages Act, the Privacy Act, and, of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act.

These other quasi-constitutional statutes will also exist on a level playing field with the Canadian victims bill of rights. As an example, courts must interpret the Official Languages Act in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If there is a conflict between these two quasi-constitutional statutes, the court would balance the rights in these two statutes.

During many of these consultations, we heard about the need to have enforceability behind the bill. We have provisions that pertain specifically to that in working with provincial ombudsmen and the discretionary judicial remedies that exist already.

Spousal immunity and other elements of this bill will, I know, receive due consideration. I would suggest that there is ample opportunity now to discuss the bill in greater detail as it proceeds to the House, and I look forward to the debate and hearing from members who are participating.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech, which reminds me of a Bee Gees song called It's Only Words.

All of the victims, every single one, told us that they need programs, support services, rehabilitation and compensation. However, in Bill C-32 , the government decided to abandon all of those pricey requests and opted for symbolism instead. I am wondering why that is.

I am also wondering why it took eight years to draft a text that contains no real legal obligations, as was attested to by officials from the Department of Justice. Bill C-32 does not create any legal obligation for Crown prosecutors, police or support services to provide that information to the victims. It creates no binding legal recourse for the victims.

Did the minister get confirmation that Bill C-32 is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

Unfortunately, she has decided to trivialize this bill.

What we have before us is a very comprehensive effort to include what we heard through the past number of years, but more recently and specifically on this legislation, in an effort to balance the rights of victims, the entrenched protections within our criminal justice system, and the discretion necessary for the crown, police, and judges.

However, there is very much an increased and heightened obligation found within this bill. There are enforceable measures that include the discretion of the judge to ensure that the various individuals who have these obligations and responsibilities to victims follow through and there are mechanisms in place within every province and territory that allow for victims to seek recourse and follow up if they do not receive the proper treatment and information that they seek.

The member would probably be the first person in the House to stand here and criticize if the government tried to somehow go outside of its jurisdiction and demand of provinces something that is clearly within the constitutional rights of the provinces.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if one were to canvass the constituents I represent in Winnipeg North and the vast majority of Canadians for their opinions on what would constitute an important issue in the crime and safety file, quite often what would be raised is the fact that we are not doing enough to prevent crimes from happening. If we did more of that, we would have fewer victims.

My question to the member is related to the impact of this bill on police forces. I met with police representatives of the City of Winnipeg Police Service just yesterday. One of the concerns is that police put a lot of time and effort into areas that have nothing to do with actual police work. For example, it might be in a hospital institution or sitting in a court.

Would this bill do anything related to assisting our police officers in preventing crimes in the first place? It seems to be a high priority. If the bill would not, can the member indicate what the minister has done to assist that particular file?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very muddled question on the issue of victims' rights. I think the hon. member should go back to some of those constituents whom he represents in Winnipeg and ask them if they feel that victims are currently being given the right to inclusion, the right to respect, the right to information. That is what the bill seeks to do.

In terms of helping the police, the police are very supportive of this effort. Because they work every day with victims, they want to see improvements in the lives of victims and their loved ones.

As for what we have done, I am pleased to be joined in the House by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and I can tell the House that we have done a great deal to enhance the ability of police to do their work. In fact, I suggest that there is no government in the history of Canada that has included more police officers elected to the House of Commons to come here and ensure that we are doing more for the law enforcement community. We are giving them the tools they need, including legislative tools that will improve their ability to do their work and protect Canadians. Those improvements include the ability to share data, to have more forensic investigations, to improve their work environment.

This government has made tremendous strides in improving the way in which law enforcement and police officers can do their work in this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his first speech as we look at the victims bill of rights, Bill C-32.

I wonder if he could outline for us the extent to which the bill mirrors the recommendations that came from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. The Conservatives chose not to take some of the advice put forward by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. They obviously have taken on some of the recommendations, but not all. I wonder if he could set out for us why certain pieces of that useful advice was not included in the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very pertinent question, and we did, as she has alluded to, draw quite heavily on the recommendations of Sue O'Sullivan, the federal victims ombudsman.

As I mentioned in my remarks, many of the areas were seen as contentious. We would perhaps create further delays in the system and slow down the process by requiring the victims to have standing or to be able to insert themselves in a way that would cause the process to stop or to hesitate.

There are also resource implications. We have given the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime a budget. We have just recently expanded her ability to have signing authority in some areas.

This office itself, as I know the member opposite would recognize, was a creation of the current government. This office did not exist prior to our coming to government in 2006. We believe it is an enhancement, as is the role of ombudsmen at the provincial level. They will work collectively to ensure enforcement and ensure that the bill is giving meaning as well as the spirit of this legislation to enhance the role and the rights of victims. I look forward to the hon. member's further contributions.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for introducing the victims bill of rights. It was announced last week in my city of Mississauga by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I and my constituents believe that this measure addresses the real needs of victims. It will go a long way toward restoring and bolstering the faith of the people of my riding in Mississauga in our criminal justice system.

Prior to being appointed as Minister of Justice, the minister was one of Canada's longest-serving and most respected ministers of defence. I wonder if he could tell us if the victims bill of rights would apply to the military justice system.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to praise my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, for his work and leadership on this particular bill and for his ongoing efforts in that regard.

He is right to raise this issue, and it was something that we contemplated. This victims bill of rights will not in fact apply to offences investigated or proceeded with under the Canadian military justice system.

That said, there are particular challenges to extending this bill of rights into the military culture and into their system, particularly for summary trials. By that I mean that we have disciplinary tribunals that are administered by the chain of command. This system carries out the vast majority of proceedings within the Canadian military justice system, and this victims bill of rights would not be immediately applicable to it upon final adoption by the House.

However, I am pleased to tell my friend in the House that after speaking with the Judge Advocate General, General Blaise Cathcart from Nova Scotia, who is a very capable officer, and with people like Bruce MacGregor, who is also working in the JAG office, I can say the intention is clear that we will determine how we can in fact incorporate the victims bill of rights into our military justice system in the future in order to ensure that we are mirroring it to the best extent possible and to ensure that our military justice system also provides these benefits and protections for victims who are subject to the military justice system.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

First off, I am inclined to say that it is about time, since the government has been talking about this for awhile now. I know that the Minister of Justice likes to say that we decided to trivialize. This is not a matter of trivializing. I am simply stating the factual conclusions that everyone concerned about the issue of victims' rights here in Canada has already come to.

We are dealing with a Conservative government that has been talking about this issue for a long time and that has made serious promises in this regard. MPs who, like me, are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were able to hear from a number of victims as part of the debates on this issue held in the context of various law and order bills.

We sometimes heard very sad stories of a sensitive nature. This testimony helped us understand what needs to be done in terms of victims' rights and what victims need in certain circumstances.

The Conservative government has been promising to introduce this victims bill of rights for many years now. It has often dangled that promise in front of Canadians. The Conservatives have also held multiple press conferences in this regard, where they reiterated that they were in favour of introducing such legislation.

The official opposition is not trivializing. We are simply stating the facts.

If there is one thing that horrifies me, it is using already fragile individuals for political purposes. I do not want to impute motives, but these people have many, very specific needs. They have been speaking out about those needs for a long time. I will agree that the ombudsman for victims has already made recommendations.

I finally received Bill C-32 last week. I would like to digress for a moment to talk about the process. Bill C-32 was introduced on Thursday. Today, Wednesday, we are here in the House to begin debating the bill at second reading. It did not even take the Conservative government, through the Minister of Justice, even 24 hours to send out a householder to all Conservative supporters. I have good contacts who were able to show me that the Conservatives are already using the victims bill of rights to solicit interest in and support for the Conservative Party.

It always bugs me when people use something as serious as a victims bill of rights to generate political capital. I know that we are in the political business, but I think there are some issues that should not be used in this way.

All the same, I did thoroughly peruse Bill C-32. I wanted to give it a chance. The NDP always likes to give these things a chance. We always look at the bill and discuss it in caucus. At lunchtime today, I had the pleasure of talking to my colleagues about Bill C-32. I am not afraid to say here what I said to them: I was a little let down. When I read the bill, I felt that it did not really meet the needs of victims I had heard from.

It sounds good in principle, and we hope that something will happen in the courts, but it is not necessarily the guarantee or the cure-all victims thought it would be. The government did its very best to raise victims' expectations, and now I am sure they will be disappointed.

Kudos to the government for creating a victims bill of rights. Nobody in the House would be against that. I dare anyone to say that we are against victims. We brought forward some facts and we want to improve the process and the legislation. That does not make us anti-victim. On the contrary, we want to improve this bill to really meet the expectations of victims who expressed their opinion on this matter.

Could victims be disappointed in regard to certain expectations? Regardless of what the minister may think, anyone who was expecting the justice system to change, perhaps in terms of access to justice, will be disappointed, because there is not much in this bill to address that.

It does give victims certain rights when it comes to the possibility of being informed, being able to make comments, and so on. However, given how trial proceedings unfold, this bill is not necessarily the guarantee they were hoping for. This is not necessarily a mistake on the government's part. Rather, the mistake was letting victims believe that they could have that right. Indeed, people will be even more disappointed about that. I feel sorry for the first victim who invokes the victims bill of rights and then makes a particular demand based on that. Many courts of law will say that that is not how it works.

Let me say right away that the NDP will be supporting this bill at second reading. I hope we will have time to read it and study it thoroughly in committee.

At least there are ways to ensure that victims fully understand the limits and the scope of this bill of rights, so that they do not have any more false expectations than they might already have. Indeed, if they are relying solely on the headlines we see in some newspapers, they probably think they have acquired certain rights that they absolutely do not have.

There is another huge problem with this bill of rights. It has many limitations. Again, no matter what the minister says, the Conservatives inserted a section on complaints. In caucus, I used the analogy of the complaints system that exists in the provincial health care system. For instance, someone who goes to the hospital and is unhappy with the service they receive can file a complaint, and this has no binding effect on anyone. The bill of rights states quite clearly that, regardless of the context of a complaint, this does give the person exercising their right to complain any further legal rights. Therefore, this is not a legal remedy that would allow us to say that anyone who does not listen to victims could be penalized.

It is the same thing with restitution. The minister talked about it earlier. This is not the first time he has talked about this, but he made much of the fact that the cost associated with everything involving crime is somewhere around $100 billion and that the victims bear 83% of those costs. There is nothing in this bill, nothing in the budget, nothing anywhere to help victims where they really need it.

In committee, a mother talked to us about what happened after the murder of her daughter, who was in another province. Obviously, as the mother of someone who had been killed, she wanted to attend the trial. She had to pay her way to and from the courthouse. We know how long this type of trial can last. It cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Can I now tell her that thanks to the victims bill of rights, she can be compensated? There is not much hope for her.

Of course, members on the Conservative benches are going to say that when it comes to victims, certain things fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, there could have been a national agreement to send money to the provinces to provide victims the level of compensation they need. How many victims' compensation programs have been cancelled? How many programs are not really getting more money? The government is constantly throwing in our face the fact that it has invested $120 million. Just saying $120 million in the same sentence as the minister's $100 billion shows how inadequate all this is.

As far as restitution orders are concerned, I will provide an example for the victims watching us who think they will be compensated after a criminal trial. First, the judge will have the discretion to establish whether that is appropriate in the case at hand. Does the government really think that every accused person in our justice system has the means to pay restitution?

In life we have to be realistic. In some cases, my client is justified in suing, but the person to be sued does not have a cent. We can get the order we want, but we will not be able to execute it.

With respect to expediting the process, in a case where the court finds that, in the circumstances, it can order payment of a given amount by the accused who is found guilty, the order may not necessarily be automatic, even if it is desirable. We must not get peoples' hopes up. Otherwise, they will think that they do not need civil remedy. Nowhere does it say that this will be a court order. However, if there is an order, the person can have it executed before the provincial court that would deal with the situation at the civil level.

I like that because I have always found it ridiculous that victims have to testify in several criminal courts and have a parallel civil suit, which often has to start at the beginning. In fact, the civil proceedings must often wait until the criminal trial has been completed, and so forth. That just slows down the entire process.

For the victims listening to us, I repeat that they must not expect too much. There is no guarantee that they will automatically have rights that are as specific as those described by the minister.

We wonder about some of the bill's provisions. We will have to see what it is about. I was a little surprised to see the removal of the exception to the Canada Evidence Act concerning testimony by spouses. I am not against that, but I question the fact that the victims bill of rights is being used to make this change to the Canada Evidence Act. We shall see. I do not know why they are doing that all of a sudden. It could have been done in another way, but we shall see.

Furthermore, there is something that has been bothering legal experts, and I asked the minister a question about it but did not get an answer. I asked him whether he has confirmation that the Canadian victims bill of rights is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which takes precedence over this bill of rights and the Constitution.

Was any consideration given to testimony being provided under a pseudonym? This is allowed in some court cases for safety reasons, and I think everyone understands that. However, a number of these provisions already exist. They may not be codified as they are now in the bill of rights, but they already exist under the principles established by the statement for victims of crime that the federal government signed in 2003.

People are able to testify behind a screen for very specific reasons. The defence lawyer and the accused still have the right to see the persons involved, as long as there is no contact between them. The courts have some discretion in this regard.

As I said in the various panels I participated in after the bill of rights was introduced, I am very pleased—for once—to see that the government did not try to do what it loves to do with other bills, which is to take away the court's discretion to assess each case, since each case is truly unique. We must ensure that we achieve our goal without eliminating the fundamental concept of criminal law, which is the presumption of innocence.

In an article published in the National Post, Christie Blatchford, who is certainly no friend of the NDP, wrote a rather scathing criticism of the new Canadian victims bill of rights.

I would not want to misquote her, so here is the title of her article: “Victims need help? You must be kidding”.

In other words, it is tantamount to uttering a truism. It is true, but at the same time, if you read her article, you will see that many of these rights already exist.

In the courts, you often see crown prosecutors taking the time to explain the process to victims and talking to them about what they will have to get through. True, it is not the same everywhere. Still, it is also true that there is a major problem with resources in the courts considering the number of crown prosecutors and the number of judges.

These are very serious problems that this government should tackle if it does not want its whole law and order agenda to blow up in its face. Sooner or later, the government will have to be logical and provide resources. It will have to put its money where its mouth is.

That is the part that is always missing from government bills that talk the talk: they never walk the walk; they never give victims access to the resources they need in the courts.

Some do, sure. However, one of the major problems victims face is how slow the legal process moves. Until the government figures out how to fix that problem, it can put all of the principles it wants on paper, but it will never fix anything. The government has to improve access to justice so that the whole process can move faster. It has to ensure that neither the accused nor anyone else involved in a case has to wait too long.

Those who have some experience with criminal law know that victims often sit in the hall, waiting and feeling stressed because participating in the process is very stressful.

The minister is right when he says that not all victims will want to use this kind of service, but those who go to court—as witnesses, as victims, or just to ensure that everything is happening the way it should and to keep a close eye on every step of the process—would like to see justice served within a reasonable period of time.

When the minister appears before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we want to ask him about funding. We want to know how much money will be allocated to implementing the measures in this bill on the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Victims need psychological help as part of their rehabilitation. I am not talking about rehabilitating the person who has been found guilty. I am talking about the victim who, at some point, must cease to be a victim and move on. We need to give them a hand, and I believe that the responsibility falls to each and every one of us.

The minister can stand up and say that we can fix the situation with the help of the person who has been convicted. That is all well and good, but that person needs to have the means to pay, which is not always the case.

In that situation, should the victim just be abandoned? Instead, should we, as a society acknowledge that it is up to us to take responsibility, even though the government is not keen on the issue?

It is our collective duty to help victims overcome difficulties, not only in relation to the trial and the various criminal stages, but also in relation to their personal lives, so that they are no longer in that group of people who take on 83% of the $100 billion price tag.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

The NDP supports the principle of this bill and they support sending it to committee for further study. However, the comments that I heard did not criticize the substance of the bill.

I listened carefully to the member opposite and she appeared to criticize the fact that the bill had not come in soon enough, that it did not go far enough, but that it maybe went too far in other areas. I am still waiting to hear from her whether she sees actual improvements that could perhaps build upon the principle. Let us not forget for a moment that it is our government that is bringing forward a bill of rights to protect and enhance victims' participation in the system. No other government in the history of Canada has given the attention and focus this government has to the entrenchment of rights for victims.

She referenced, in fact, the issue with respect to spousal immunity. She would know that some 40 Criminal Code offences already waive spousal immunity, and we have gone further to ensure that all of the evidence in the truth-seeking exercises of the court can include the testimony of spouses for things such as murder, terrorism, and major fraud.

This is a bill that takes monumental steps forward in entrenching in one federal law the protection of victims. I would suspect that the members opposite would want to see this bill enacted quickly, and I look forward to working with her and other members to see this bill pass through the House and become the law of the land.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that I did not criticize the substance of the bill, but it is somewhat difficult to do that when the bill has no substance. That is basically what I am trying to say.

I hope he understands that I am extremely disappointed. After hearing what the government was saying, I got my hopes up, as did victims. Perhaps it is impossible to put everything down on paper, but if that is the case, stop holding press conferences just to blow hot air. The government is unable to deliver on the promises it made at the time.

That is the danger the Conservative government was facing. That is precisely the trap it fell into and that it set for itself. The government gave the impression that its Canadian victims bill of rights would fix every issue that victims are experiencing, but anyone who reads the document closely will know better.

The minister said that no other government has proposed such a bill of rights. I would like to believe that, but some provinces have moved faster than the federal government. They have already determined, in terms of their dealings with the courts, how this should be handled and how the various players in a criminal trial should work with the victims. The minister may not have stepped foot inside a courthouse in a while, but there are often people there who are specifically tasked with ensuring that victims know exactly where they are going.

As for spouses who could be called on to testify against one another, I am quite aware that this already exists in other legislation. That is what I was trying to point out. Why put this in a victims bill of rights when the Conservatives have already created other laws? Why not place it in the context of specific offences instead of in a victims bill of rights? That is the point I wanted to make.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my hon. colleague a question.

My question has to do with a specific topic, perhaps one of substance. It is about the fact that all victims have the right to information, upon request. The bill states a few times “only on request”. I think my colleague knows that under California's victims bill of rights, victims are given a card, and not just when they ask for it. Why are my colleague's thoughts on that, particularly for enhancing victims' rights?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the things that can be requested are written down. Asking is one thing; receiving is another.

Let me give you an example. On page 11 of Bill C-32, it states:

10. (1) Subsection 278.7(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) In determining whether to order the production of the record or part of the record to the accused, the judge shall consider the salutary and deleterious effects of the determination on the accused’s right to make a full answer and defence and on the right to privacy, personal security and equality of the complainant or witness, as the case may be, and of any other...

Victims can ask for certain things under the bill of rights, and that is fine. However, there are many qualifications attached. I am not saying this is bad; I am simply telling the government to stop pretending that this solves all the world's problems. That is not true. It should not be raising victims' expectations, for if they were to rely solely on the headlines in the media, they might think this is paradise. This is not the case, and the fall back to earth will be brutal.

That is all I have to say. Perhaps the government needs to change its rhetoric and use a tone that is a little more reserved, to stop making victims believe in things that do not exist.

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

Mr. Speaker, shortly before the bill was introduced, Andrew Swan, the Attorney General of Manitoba, mentioned that Ottawa would do well to create a national program in co-operation with the provinces.

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.

As my colleague mentioned several times in her speech, resources are the sinews of war. Without people in the field and without resources, a piece of legislation does not make any sense. I would like the member to comment on the Attorney General of Manitoba's statement.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Andrew Swan, who is an excellent attorney general.

He identified the problem even before the government introduced its bill, its victims bill of rights. I fully expect that the provinces and territories will be forced to deal with victims requests on a daily basis. People will also ask for all kinds of resources.

In that context, I hope that the Conservative government will be open to the requests. All the parties in the House agree that we should be helping the victims, but we have to do something tangible that will truly change their lives. Writing some things down on paper and indulging in hollow rhetoric is not going to cut it.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member say that she did not think the bill contained important new rights for victims. I had occasion to sit on the recently concluded Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, where we listened to the families of those victims from across Canada. Each and every one of them said that what they really needed was information on the investigation into their missing loved one, information about the prosecution of the person responsible for the murder or harm to their missing loved one.

We hear this from victims time and time again. My office in Mississauga was subject to an arson attack a number of years ago. If it were not for the media, we would not have heard anything about the investigation or the prosecution of the accused in that situation.

I wonder if the member could tell us what she thinks about the right to information in the bill for victims, information about both the investigative part of any crime done to them and the prosecution of a perpetrator after someone is charged with that crime.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to missing or murdered aboriginal women, we need to do more than providing some information to the families, who are desperately waiting. A public inquiry is essential.

A number of these rights, including the one my colleague just mentioned, already exist in some regions. I did not say that is bad. I am saying it has limitations and it must not interfere. The minister himself was clear: this must not interfere. People at the Department of Justice say the same thing: this must not compromise investigations, trials or the rights of the accused. Altogether, that creates rather weak legislation. That is all I am saying.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate and address Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which sets out a number of important rights for victims of crime, particularly with respect to information, participation, protection, and restitution.

For victims and their families, navigating the path of justice, from police services to the trial process to incarceration and parole, can be a very difficult ordeal, sometimes frightening and often costly. Victims may have experienced significant emotional or physical trauma as well as material loss, and most painfully, the loss of loved ones.

As such, it is critical that our justice system and related departments and agencies treat victims with respect and sensitivity, appreciate their concerns, and minimize their burden. To that end, the bill before us appears to be in most respects one more step in the right direction, and I commend the minister for this initiative.

I have certain concerns about aspects of the proposed legislation that I will discuss shortly, the substantive critique that the minister himself invited, but I am hopeful that these legislative aspects can be examined and, if need be, amended and refined at committee.

As I said, Bill C-32 is one more step because it builds upon past efforts across party lines, and as the minister mentioned, the initiatives by provinces, to improve the treatment of victims of crime within our justice system.

Indeed, the preamble of the bill references the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, which was first endorsed by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice in 1988 under a Progressive Conservative government, and updated and endorsed again under a Liberal government in 2003.

Shortly thereafter, as minister of justice, I was proud to introduce the Martin government's very first bill, which increased protections for children and other vulnerable Canadians against exploitation and abuse. In particular, that legislation facilitated the testimony of child victims and other vulnerable witnesses by providing for the more widespread use of testimonial aids and support persons, which the minister referenced in his remarks today. In fact, the legislation before us builds upon many of the very provisions that were enacted or enhanced at that time.

I was also pleased to introduce Canada's first ever legislation to specifically target human trafficking, the contemporary global slave trade with its multiply-affected victims. It is to the credit of this House that the battle to combat human trafficking and exploitation has been a multi-partisan effort. Indeed, the bill I introduced at the time passed unanimously, and in recent years I have been pleased to support efforts by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and the member for Ahuntsic to build upon that initial legislation.

There was all-party support as well for a 2005 bill that enhanced the national DNA data bank by authorizing judges to order DNA samples from those convicted of a number of serious crimes, including child pornography and offences related to underage prostitution. The national DNA data bank was itself created by the Liberal government in 2000, and has proven to be a valuable crime-fighting tool that has helped to protect vulnerable Canadians and to bring to justice those who would do them harm.

As regards the role of victims within the justice process, as minister of justice, I joined with the hon. Anne McLellan, the then minister of public safety, to establish a national office for victims in order to coordinate federal initiatives for victims of crime and ensure that their perspectives would be considered in the development of policy and legislation, which is a principle and process enhanced by this victims bill of rights act. We also set up a fund to help cover travel and accommodation costs for victims attending parole board hearings.

Moreover, and again with the support of MPs on both sides of the aisle, we enacted important measures to improve the treatment of victims in cases where the accused was found not criminally responsible. Those measures included protecting the identity and privacy of victims, allowing for the oral presentation of victim impact statements, and permitting the adjournment of review board hearings if victims needed more time to prepare.

Therefore, as I have said, I am proud not only of my own party's record when it comes to crime prevention and victims' rights—and here I reference as well the restorative justice initiatives—but also of the many instances in the past when members of all parties joined together in a spirit of collaboration and good faith to advance these important objectives and ideals.

I note with regret that public safety and victims' rights have sometimes been used as a wedge issue in an attempt to paint opponents of legislation that may have suspect constitutional policy grounds as being soft on crime or uncaring toward victims. Yet, victims are best served when we as parliamentarians focus on their interests rather than our own.

Many of the past bills to which I have referred were subject to thorough scrutiny and amendment at committee, a fact indicative not of the weakness of the legislation but the strength of the parliamentary process. I hope that the debate and study of Bill C-32 will likewise be open-minded and robust, as the minister appeared to invite.

In that vein, I will now turn to the legislation itself and to some of its aspects that merit further examination.

First, the bill would establish a number of victims' rights, divided into the categories of information, protection, participation, and restitution. As I said, I fully support the idea of extending these important rights to victims of crime. Victims must clearly be made aware of the rights and resources at their disposal, and they must, if they so choose, be kept abreast of the justice process from the investigative phase to the potential ultimate release of the offender, and at every point in between.

As well, the security of victims must be a paramount consideration, including the protection of their right to privacy and protection from intimidation and retaliation. Victims themselves should be able to share their views with the appropriate authorities within the justice system and to have, as much as possible, a meaningful role throughout the justice process. Finally, victims should be able to seek restitution where appropriate.

These are important rights contained in the legislation, to which I am pleased to lend my support and my party's support.

My concerns with respect to this section of the bill, and here I again relate to the minister's invitation regarding substantive critiques, are related primarily to the degree to which these rights are, in fact, enforceable. It is one thing to proclaim that victims of crime have this panoply of rights, however important that in itself is, but it is quite another to give them concrete expression by devoting adequate financial and human resources and putting in place an effective organizational infrastructure for recourse and remedy.

For instance, a House of Commons subcommittee studying victims' rights 14 years ago found that victims sometimes had difficulty contacting the right person within a government agency to access information to which they were entitled, and they occasionally received different or conflicting information from various sources within the same agency.

I mention this not to cast blame on any of the individuals who work at the Correctional Service , the Parole Board, or any other agencies that make up our justice system but to underscore the extent to which the resources in this system are already spread quite thin. As such, saying that a victim is entitled to information, protection, restitution, or a role in the process is important, and it cannot be underestimated. However, it is not the same as ensuring that they, in fact, get that.

Moreover, for rights to be meaningful, there must be appropriate recourse available in the event that they are infringed. However, the avenue for recourse as set out in Bill C-32 is merely a requirement that federal departments and agencies establish internal mechanisms to receive and review complaints and recommend remedial action. Again, it is not clear whether additional resources would be allocated to ensure that the complaint mechanisms would be effective, but neither is it clear what recourse, if any, victims would have if such internal complaint mechanisms did not resolve a situation to their satisfaction. This potential lack of recourse risks aggravating, rather than assuaging, the frustration of victims.

In short, having raised the expectations of victims of crime, the government is now responsible for meeting those expectations. I hope to hear more from the government, as the minister himself spoke today, about the concrete ways in which it intends to do so.

I will now move on to the Criminal Code amendments contained in this bill. For the most part, these amendments seek inter alia to protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses, to specify certain information to which victims are entitled, and to enhance the role of victims in the justice process. All of these objectives, as I mentioned earlier, are ones that I share.

There are, however, several clauses in this section of the bill that merit thorough examination at committee so as to ensure that their consequences are fully and accurately understood. To begin with, the bill proposes quite a broad definition of “victim” in the Criminal Code. The minister referenced this definition in his remarks.

The new definition would go so far as to include, in certain circumstances, an individual, and I quote:

...who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission of an offence against any other person.

I certainly understand the impulse to extend the protection and rights of Bill C-32 to as many Canadians as possible, but there may be a point at which a definition becomes so broad that it can be rendered unworkable. For example, if everyone who has suffered emotional harm because of an offence committed against any other person is entitled to make representations during sentencing proceedings or at a review board hearing, as provided for by this bill, might there not be a risk of overburdening the system and slowing down proceedings to the detriment of victims themselves? At the very least, when experts come before committee, this would be a question worth asking and clarifying.

Another element of Bill C-32 that should be carefully considered is the expanded access to publication bans with respect to court proceedings.

The safety and privacy of victims and witnesses are undoubtedly vital concerns. At the same time, requests for publication bans require resources to adjudicate and enforce. It is not evident that our justice system is presently equipped to deal with this change.

Again, to be clear, I do not mean to suggest that the change is problematic in and of itself, but we must investigate its implications and cost consequences and ensure that the government is prepared to make the necessary resource commitment.

Bill C-32 would also remove the protection of spousal privilege such that it would be possible to compel an individual to testify against his or her spouse. As the minister himself mentioned in his remarks, numerous exceptions to this privilege have existed in Canada for many years. This is, nevertheless, a long-standing legal principle, and it will be important to understand its operation and use to fully appreciate the impact, positive or negative, of its removal. Again, this would be a useful issue for committee deliberation.

Another possible area of concern regards the payment of restitution by an offender to a victim. In particular, the legislation would prohibit a court from considering an offender's ability to pay when making a restitution order. This would be a significant concern in cases where the offender is impoverished and no work program is available to him or her while incarcerated, not least because the victim would be unlikely to receive the restitution that he or she has been awarded by the court.

This particular provision echoes the government's unfortunate approach to the victim fine surcharge, whereby offenders are required to pay hundreds of dollars at sentencing, with no allowance made for those who simply do not have the money. Since the mandatory surcharge has come into force, judges across the country have had to find creative ways around it, such as allowing many years for repayment.

Bill C-32 would make an important change to the surcharge, requiring that it be paid either within a period determined by the province or in a reasonable time after its imposition. Yet what is “reasonable” may depend greatly upon the offender's ability to pay. Indeed, to cite certain real-life cases from recent months, it is unclear what would be a reasonable period of time in which to expect a homeless Ottawa teenager or a drug-addicted refugee from Sierra Leone to raise hundreds of dollars.

The wording would likely lead to even more court cases on this front, all of which would cost taxpayers more than any amount they would receive from the payment of the surcharge.

Another aspect of Bill C-32 that must be carefully considered concerns the important changes to sentencing principles proposed in the bill, which the minister referenced in his remarks. For example, Bill C-32 would add the protection of society as a fundamental purpose of sentencing in the Criminal Code. Yet existing sentencing principles already include “the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. As such, it is unclear what the government is seeking to achieve with this seemingly redundant provision.

I hope that the justice committee will hear from criminal law experts about any possible effects of this change.

The bill would also add the denunciation of harm done to victims as a purpose of sentencing, an addition that raises similar questions, in particular how this denunciation would be achieved in a manner distinct from the denunciation of the conduct at issue and whether the impact of such a double denunciation would simply be to increase prison sentences across the board, regardless of whether such punishment fit the crime.

Finally, Bill C-32 would change the provision that underpins the Gladue principles of sentencing for aboriginal offenders. These principles currently require the courts to consider “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances”, particularly with respect to aboriginal offenders, notably in recognition of the serious problem of the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in Canadian prisons.

Importantly, the Gladue principles do not automatically reduce an aboriginal offender's sentence, nor do they permit aboriginal offenders to escape serious punishment for serious crimes. The principles have, however, been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2012.

However, Bill C-32 would appear to limit the application of the Gladue principles by specifying that the sentence must be “consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community”.

At the very least, this raises questions about the extent to which a sentencing principle meant to facilitate rehabilitation should be marginalized in favour of a more punitive approach. It would certainly be appropriate for experts in aboriginal justice to testify at committee on this point.

Nevertheless, in spite of these areas of potential concern, I will support sending the bill to committee for further study.

As I said earlier, I hope that committee members will engage in that study with the seriousness and responsiveness the subject demands and that the government, as it appears to indicate, would be open to amendments.

Before I conclude, I will turn briefly to measures not included in the bill that could be as important, if not more so, when it comes to respecting victims of crime and to preventing Canadians from becoming victims in the first place.

In our focus on domestic victims of crime, we must not forget that there are Canadians impacted in serious ways by crimes that have occurred abroad. In this regard, I remain troubled by the government's stance on state immunity. Thus far, it has acted to limit the number of state entities Canadians can sue for terror.

While I was pleased that the government adopted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act just a few short years ago, the government has only listed two states Canadians can sue. Even then, it did not initially seem disposed to helping Canadian victims get justice prior to American claimants seeking to enforce foreign judgments regarding Iran in Canada. There must be a more equitable process for victims than the current listing mechanism that places the entirety of its discretionary authority in the hands of the minister. While I will not dwell on this point, I do hope the government will reconsider its position on this issue. As well, I trust that the protection will be expanded to include not only victims of terror but also victims of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, which I have referenced in a private member's bill otherwise before this House.

Earlier I mentioned the importance of keeping Canadians from becoming victims of crime to begin with, the prevention principle. Regrettably, the government has not put sufficient emphasis on prevention in its approach both to victims' rights and to public safety in general.

To reduce the incidence of crime, we must combat factors that we know are linked with crime, such as issues of poverty, addiction, and mental health. Efforts in this regard require significant resource commitments and a conception of public safety that goes beyond punitive measures.

This brings me to the final area of concern. Bill C-32 contains no provisions about data sharing and collection or about developing best practices and guidelines such that victims' rights are understood in a way that is meaningful and consistent. It might be appropriate to require an annual report on the bill so that we know how many complaints are raised with respect to each right and how many are resolved to the victims' satisfaction, while enhancing federal-provincial co-operation in this regard.

In closing, I am glad this legislation is before us. While I have some concerns regarding particular clauses, I will be voting in favour of the bill at second reading, and I encourage others to do the same. We all have a part to play in supporting victims of crime. While Bill C-32 could be stronger and more effective, and I trust that at the end of the process it will be, it is one more important step in the right direction.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, my friend from Mount Royal, for a very thoughtful, constructive speech. He has raised some very important points.

Embedded in his remarks is the reality that this will be an incremental effort. He has also alluded to the fact that this, like many initiatives, will build on previous efforts and build on existing provincial-territorial infrastructure when it comes to victims. It is the living tree analogy.

The member also embodies my own sentiment, and that is that we should not let the perfect get in the way of the good. What we are attempting to do here for victims is a very important non-partisan effort.

In the brief time I have, I want to respond quickly to a couple of concerns about existing mechanisms.

There are resources. There has been a commitment made in the federal budget with respect to the necessity to improve upon existing mechanisms at the provincial and territorial level. We do not want to duplicate the effort where we do, in fact, have some of those mechanisms in place already.

We have also heard from a lot of victims about the necessity of trying to help them collect, as the member alluded to, with respect to restitution. That dovetails with other efforts we have put in place with respect to mandatory and doubled victim fine surcharges.

As well, with respect to examining, I know that the member himself is very much an internationalist in his view. We have looked outside of the country as well when it came to the enforcement mechanisms. We have looked to the United Kingdom, the United States, of course, Japan, and the European Union as to ways in which we could include the right to information, financial redress, and attendance at court proceedings. We found that very instructive.

We have also benefited from input from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who will provide some of the recourse and the redress to which the member alluded. If there are failings within the provincial and territorial system, we will look to that federal ombudsman's office to assist victims in trying to alleviate their concerns.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his remarks and his contribution to the debate. I indicated that he did make references in his remarks regarding the matter of resources, and as I said, we look forward to the institutionalization of important resource allocation with regard to the four substantive rights and their enforcement, as are set forth in this legislation.

In the matter of victim surcharges, I do not want to repeat what I have elsewhere said in this House, or even in my remarks today. However, there remain problems, as I said in my remarks, about that principle of “reasonable”, and particularly the importance of maintaining judicial discretion in that regard.

Finally, the minister mentioned going abroad internationally and the matter of enforcement, and I commend him for that. I just want to mention my particular concerns regarding victims in Canada of crimes perpetrated abroad. While reference has been made to civil remedies for victims of terror, we need to expand this to remedies with regard to victims of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I hope the minister might consider that as we go forward with this bill, as well as other amendments that will be going before the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague the same question I asked my colleague from Gatineau.

Before Bill C-32 was introduced, the Attorney General of Manitoba, Andrew Swan, said that Ottawa should establish a national program together with the provinces. We know just how much the federal government tries to hand over matters to the provinces. Mr. Swan clearly said that the federal government must not pass laws and then wash its hands of them. If the government does not set up an entity to implement this bill, like the Manitoba Victim Rights Support Service, it is a meaningless bill.

My colleague is a former justice minister. He understands the provinces' situation and I would like him to tell us whether he agrees with the comments made by the Attorney General of Manitoba.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the co-operation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments is a fundamental requirement for this bill and it is the point of the comments made by the Attorney General of Manitoba. I said in my comments that there must be co-operation.

The minister said that this bill was also based on provincial measures. I hope that the federal government will work not just with the provincial governments, but also with the people and witnesses that will appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we study this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Mount Royal will have four minutes in questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this matter.

The House resumed from April 9 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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote:

A charter of the rights of victims will finally see the day in Canada. As an organization that has been advocating for the rights of families and their missing children since 1985, we salute our government's efforts. The voices of our families have been heard...victims will now be at the centre of the judiciary system in our country.

Those are the words of Pina Arcamone, Director General of the Missing Children's Network. This organization assists families who are dealing with the disappearance of a loved one, which does happen. They can turn to this organization for support.

I have another quote:

The Harper government has kept its promise to victims. Since coming to power, the Harper government has promised to help the victims of crime. Today, we can say that that mission has been accomplished thanks to the introduction of the victims bill of rights act. It is a first in Canadian history....We welcome this new bill and actively support it.

Alain Fortier, the co-founder of Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin, or VASAM, is the person who said that. I had the privilege of meeting him just a few weeks ago, in the days following the introduction in the House of the Canadian victims bill of rights and the bill to bring it into force by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

Maybe some members will be watching the hockey game tonight instead. That reminds me that when I was born, it was right in the middle of the Canadiens’ final. The gynecologist who was attending my mother during her delivery was a little distracted. I can understand that tonight, some people are watching the Canadiens’ game. I started my speech between the first and second periods, so I would like to add my voice to a lot of people in Quebec and Canada who hope the Canadiens will win tonight.

While our glorious Habs defend the Montreal Canadiens’ honour on the ice, I want to say that I am glad to be here tonight and that I feel privileged to add my voice to the voices of Pina Arcamone, the director general of the Missing Children’s Network in Quebec, and Mr. Fortier, in supporting our government's initiative, the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Since 2006, our government has been committed to putting victims at the centre of our judicial system. The Minister of Justice introduced the bill. I was there with him, along with the Prime Minister and his wife and victims of crime like Sheldon Kennedy. This former hockey player played in the National Hockey League and was a victim of sexual assault while he was in the minor leagues, and he suffered the after-effects.

However, he decided to transform that pain into a constructive force. He was by our side to support the efforts by the government and by Canadian society to encourage victims to speak out and transform their painful experiences into sources of inspiration for other victims, to help them. Today, in fact, Sheldon Kennedy is the founder of a centre that helps other people who have been victims of assault.

This charter contains four important principles whose aim is to ensure that the fundamental rights of victims are recognized: the right to information, which has too often been ignored; the right to participate in the various stages of the judicial process; the right to protection; and the right to restitution.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, manages the judicial process, and as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, I have the privilege of ensuring that the other aspects of our legal, judicial and policing systems are taken into account in the Canadian victims bill of rights. That is what I would like to talk about this evening.

For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police works on crime scenes after a crime is committed. Correctional Service Canada ensures that offenders serve their sentences. Then there is the Parole Board of Canada. I often say that these entities are the arms and hands of justice.

It is important to ensure that victims are taken into account from the time the crime occurs to the moment the legal process is set in motion and the accused is found guilty, serves his sentence and is then freed.

A number of my colleagues have introduced private member's bills to ensure that our system works harder.

Our government has put laws in place, and the Canadian victims bill of rights solidifies and confirms this important change. The bill gives victims the opportunity to take ownership of the bill of rights and write the new law. The new Canadian law will take victims' rights into consideration. That is why this bill is worthwhile, and I hope to have the support of all members of the House.

I think that this bill transcends party lines, since it not only includes fundamental principles, but it also gives victims tools and practical measures.

Extensive consultations were held across the country to develop the Canadian victims bill of rights. I had the opportunity to participate in consultations in Montreal and Quebec City. Victims spoke up and told us what they wanted to see in the bill. This followed up on the commitment we made in the throne speech and that we mentioned in many of our communications with the public.

Who are these victims?

Floyd Wiebe's son, T.J., was murdered in 2003. He has had to deal with the challenge of trying to find out more information about the situation around his son's killer. He said that all victims want is honesty, information, and to be treated with respect.

Well, it is about time for this country to deliver on the expectation of those victims to have access to information and to be treated with respect.

When I went back to Quebec City the day after introducing the Canadian victims bill of rights, I had an opportunity to meet victims, including one whom most people would be unlikely to think of as a victim: a law enforcement officer. She was a police officer who, in the course of fulfilling her duties as a first responder, was stabbed in the face. She was severely injured. Her attacker was later granted parole and transferred to a halfway house just a few blocks away from where the victim lived. That is the kind of thing we want to put an end to. Victims need to feel protected, not just while the offender is serving time, but also once he has served his sentence and is back in society. That is why we need the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The government took the consultations very seriously. We worked hard to draft a bill that will enable victims to get the resources and information they need when they need it.

That is why we consider this bill to be historic. It is a milestone. The scope of the bill is quasi-constitutional: the Canadian victims bill of rights. The purpose of this bill of rights is to ensure transparency for victims, to ensure that they are fully aware of their rights in relation to the criminal justice system and correctional services.

Once a crime has been committed, it is important for police authorities to inform victims of their rights. This is the mechanism for that. Of course, our police officers have to catch criminals and conduct investigations, but they also have to take victims into consideration. A victim is anyone who has been subjected to physical, emotional or financial harm.

Victims must be taken into account when such actions are reported and police investigations begin, as well as at sentencing, during reviews throughout the offender's incarceration and upon release.

As I mentioned, public safety agencies have an important role to play throughout this process. Therefore, we are proposing changes to how they undertake their work with victims.

Yes, victims want to have better access to the justice system, to be able to choose the information they want to have and to decide at which points they want to interact with the system.

Those four pillars are critical.

The first one is the right to information on demand, such as the status of investigations and criminal proceedings and their outcomes. They would also have a right, on demand, to information about the conditional release of the offender.

Second, victims would have the right to protection. This would include their physical security, protecting them from intimidation and retaliation, as well as ensuring that their privacy would be considered.

Third, victims would have the right to participation. This means ensuring that victims of crime have a voice at the heart of the justice system and can convey how they personally have been impacted by crimes.

Fourth, they would have the right to restitution. By this, we mean that the court would have to consider making a restitution order and if that order were not paid, victims would the right to have that order enforced as a civil debt.

Consequently, incorporating these rights into the bill will change the way many organizations do their job. This is what is referred to as part 2 of the bill, under Public Safety. This will not only apply to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also to Correctional Service Canada, the Parole Board of Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

As far as the RCMP is concerned, under this bill, victims of crime will have the right to obtain information on the progress of a criminal investigation, from the time when the crime is reported or at the start of the investigation. Victims will not be left in the dark, which was the case for Senator Boisvenu, to whom I wish to pay tribute this evening.

For Senator Boisvenu, this bill is the culmination of what motivated him to enter politics. I consider myself highly privileged, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, to be able to benefit from the expertise, commitment and the passion of Senator Boisvenu in recognizing the rights of victims within our judicial system. He was of course in Toronto, participated in the consultations, and was also in Quebec City with Officer Sandra Dion celebrating the introduction of the bill on the Canadian victims bill of rights.

If I go back to the RCMP, the RCMP already provides information to victims, as well as referrals to victims' services. It is important for victims to know there are those great organizations and services provided, often by provinces, to help and support victims. The RCMP also takes into account a victim's need for protection throughout the investigative and judicial process.

The police and other investigators are usually the first point of contact for victims of crime. By enshrining in law the rights of victims to information, we are acknowledging that police have an important role to play and recognizing just how crucial it is to provide victims with as much information as possible over the course of a criminal investigation.

Under the Canadian victims bill of rights, Canada Border Service Agency investigators would also be affected because they would be responsible for respecting a victim's right to information and to participate in the criminal justice process. For example, the agency would be required to provide victims with updates about the status of criminal investigations related to immigration fraud.

Further, the CBSA would commit to expeditiously sharing information with the Correctional Service of Canada to ensure that registered victims of the federal offenders would be informed when an offender has been removed from Canada, subject to any privacy concerns.

These are major changes affecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Now let us look at what happens when a victim is involved when the offender is granted parole. The Canadian victims bill of rights states that a victim is entitled, upon request, to information on an offender who caused them harm. That is one of the four pillars of the bill. This right extends to information on the offender’s parole, for example, if the offender is indeed eligible.

Correctional Service Canada is already in the process of developing tools to provide victims with access to this information and, of course, to enable them to take advantage of modern technology, while respecting standards of confidentiality and privacy, and creating an appropriate environment for victims to access information.

However, this right does not extend to all the information available on the offender. For example, a victim would not have the right to access information of a highly personal nature, such as medical and psychological files, and associated reports. This information would specifically be excluded for reasons of privacy.

While registered victims will not be able to access information that does not pertain to the offence, the Canadian victims bill of rights would provide a registered victim with the right to access information that would be important to them, such as information about the offender's release into the community.

When and where will the inmate be returned to the community? Also, are there conditions imposed on him when he is released? That is fundamental information that victims will have access to through a data bank and special access.

We know that the information most frequently requested from either the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada is related to the offender's release date, destination and conditions of release.

That information will be available.

Victims also want to know whether the offender has made progress toward social reintegration during his sentence. They want to know whether the offender is taking measures to address the factors that led to his criminal behaviour. Victims will also have access to this information because we are amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act precisely in order to allow victims to get more updates on offenders' progress.

I have to say that this is a far cry from the Liberal era, when a former solicitor general even said that we must put the rights of criminals before the rights of victims. That is totally unacceptable in a society where the cost of crime is so high. It is time for us to work together to correct this situation and pass the Canadian victims bill of rights to ensure that our country puts victims at the heart of our justice system again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his presentation. It is very interesting, and it is clear that the bill deserves our attention. We must improve the situation for victims in Canada. If the government's initiative is serious, then we will be able to improve things for them.

However, the Conservatives themselves said that justice is expensive. Access to justice is also very expensive for victims. There is not a single penny that comes with the charter being presented today. How are less fortunate victims going to access all these fine programs? They are going to have a tough time.

For those who have money, so much the better. I have no doubt that those victims will benefit from this initiative. However, less fortunate victims are not just victims of crime. They are victims of the fact that they are less fortunate. How are they going to have access to justice? What is there in this bill to help them?

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question and his interest in the bill. I would like to respond with three elements and give him a concrete example that I forgot to mention in my speech.

When the offender is released, the victim, as I mentioned, will have access to three pieces of information: the offender's release date, destination and conditions of release.

There is one other very important element, and that is the fact that the victim will have access to a photo of the offender via a secure portal. We were told that those elements are important to victims.

As for the cost, we must not forget that Quebec and other provinces have made numerous programs available. There are also many organizations that help victims. Of course, we are adding a financial component with the principle of restitution.

We also have to understand—and this is often forgotten in our justice system—that the cost of crime is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars. That is important. In putting victims at the heart of the justice system again, we are taking those costs into consideration.

That is why we always need to remember that our justice system must also protect victims from criminals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister has said. One of the concerns I have had in relation to victims is whether the government is doing enough to prevent victims in the first place. When I have the opportunity to have discussions with many of my constituents, they want the government to be more aggressive at coming up with proactive programming, encouraging activities that would lead to fewer victims. I think all Canadians want that.

For me, this is an opportunity to get onto the record an important issue. I believe the government could be doing more. The minister might want to respond, specifically, to the importance of preventing victims in the first place. I realize it is not necessarily overly relevant to the bill, but it is an important aspect. I would be interested in his comments on that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, reducing crime at the source pertains to the debate tonight. That is why this government has been so keen on making our streets and communities safer by strengthening our laws. We wish we could have benefited from the support of the opposition member, but unfortunately, that has not materialized.

Numbers show that in this country, the crime rate is steadily declining. This is reassuring for Canadians.

With respect to recidivism, those serious criminals who commit repeated offences need to stay behind bars. That is why we have introduced minimum sentences for those specific offences. They are only a tiny portion of crimes. Minimum sentences are important so that honest people are not bothered by criminals.

There is another point I would like to raise. We have a broad national crime prevention strategy. We are working to prevent youth from getting involved with youth gangs. We are also planning to move forward on a strategy to tackle organized crime. This is a challenge.

One dollar invested in prevention and fighting crime is billions of dollars saved. Not only is money saved, but lives are not broken by criminals.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister would be so kind, I would like him to go back to Senator Boisvenu, who before he became a senator was on the streets of Montreal speaking against human traffickers in Quebec. In his life, he turned a great tragedy into a great triumph. The victims bill of rights is important, and Senator Boisvenu had some input into it.

Could the minister please comment on the senator's input on this particular bill of rights?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about being in politics and being on this journey is being able to meet exceptional people. I was certainly privileged to meet with Senator Boisvenu.

I also want to pay tribute to a member of the House who is so committed to fighting human trafficking, which is the worst form of crime in this country. It is modern slavery. I am speaking of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She is the one who brought this to reality.

It was the member for Kildonan—St. Paul who made me realize that human trafficking is a reality. It definitely existed in Canada in the 2000s, just as it did in 2010 and it does in 2014.

In fact, Senator Boisvenu, Justice Andrée Ruffo and I marched together in the streets of Montreal to ensure that predators—those who prey especially on minors and often lead them into prostitution, drugs and exploitation—are brought before the courts and subject to minimum sentences.

In that regard, I believe that the member has done much more than is required of an elected official, because she has championed this cause. It is inspiring for all parliamentarians. Her work is very relevant to the victims bill of rights, as is that of Senator Boisvenu. As we know, he was struck by tragedy: a repeat offender killed his daughter.

Senator Boisvenu has worked to ensure that other Canadians do not go through the same trauma. That is why he is campaigning very methodically and rigorously for the recognition of victims' rights. I am thinking, for example, of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

Once again, I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. I encourage her to continue her work because Canada needs women like her to support the most vulnerable people in our society, including victims of sexual assault.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in favour of the bill before us, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts. I am supporting it at second reading, because I see some real potential here, and I am hoping that when it gets to committee, it will get the kind of work it requires so we can really address the area of victims' rights. We want to support victims of indictable offences in a real way. We also want to make sure that this charter is not simply a statement of principle that will never be implemented and will just gather dust on some shelf.

This bill outlines the federal right of victims of crime to be informed, to be protected, to participate, and to receive compensation under the Canadian victims bill of rights, and it proposes modifications to the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Canada Evidence Act to incorporate these rights.

I think this is really important for us to pay attention to. Bill C-32 establishes no legal obligation on those working in the criminal justice system to implement these rights. One thing I have learned over the years is that to have rights on paper does not guarantee too much, because what we need to go along with the rights given to us in legislation are also the tools so that those rights can be implemented and we can benefit from what legislators pass.

We often hear, and I have heard this a number of times, that my colleagues across the aisle truly want to make victims a priority, despite the fact that it took them eight years and many photo ops and press releases to get to the point where they put pen to paper and tabled something before this House. We have to spend some time looking at why it has taken this government that long a time to bring forward this bill, when it has talked about it for such a long time.

It is no secret in this House that the NDP has always supported the rights of victims. We will continue to consult with victims groups and experts to determine how we can best assist them. On this side of the House, we have no allergy to expert opinion, to data, to research, or to listening to the health professionals who work with victims. They know a lot about this.

As members know, I have been a teacher most of my life, and in that role, I was also a counsellor in a school. I often dealt with young adults who were victims of crime and with their families as well. I became aware of the deplorable lack of services that exist to support victims, so this has been a topic that has been close and dear to my heart for a number of years. I am glad to see that the government will be moving on it.

One of the things I also became aware of when I was a high school counsellor is how few resources there are out there. I do not know if members are aware of this, but the federal government has often relied on the provinces to provide some of these resources and services to support victims. However, the provinces are feeling stretched to the limit. We are hearing from them that the downloading of the refugee health care costs is putting a huge burden on the provinces. We have heard that from the premiers, from citizen groups, and from the medical profession as well. That is one example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

There have been other things, as we know, such as health care costs and all kinds of responsibilities. Under this government, the costs have been downloaded to the provinces to carry out. They only have so many resources.

I was reminded today of something that happened in B.C. In the beautiful province of British Columbia, we actually have a Liberal-Conservative coalition government. They call themselves Liberals, but even my colleagues across the way would admit that they are just as conservative as those sitting across the way. That government has cut the victims' criminal injuries fund. That is the fund that would be used to support and provide services to victims. I am hearing that because of financial pressures, some provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador,have eliminated that fund altogether.

I worry that we are setting expectations very high and are not going to be able to deliver those services, because there seems to be very little attached to this piece of legislation that would actually lead to any kind of implementation resources. Without those resources, all we are left with, and this I think we can agree on, are principles in proposed bills and charters. How will those play out? What kind of support will be available to the victims?

We have discovered this over and over again when we have seen legislation brought forward and we have thought that at last the government is going to address this issue. It is going to fix this. However, what I have discovered at various committee meetings is that it is not that easy, because with this government, the devil is always in the details. In this bill, it is the lack of details and resources that really hit us.

It is because of that that we are supporting this bill at second reading. We want to see what we can flesh out at committee stage. There is no way the government across the way is going to get a blank cheque on this issue without actually putting some resources on the table.

We will study the bill. We are not allergic to experts. We are going to invite experts. My colleagues across the way will invite experts, and we will listen to their opinions. We will read the data they have, and we will listen to the victims. Based on that, we will make sure that we put forward amendments so that the bill will really respond to victims' needs.

One of the things that struck me even before I decided to run as a member of Parliament was that we have had a government for a number of years that has been making all kinds of promises and often portrays itself as a law and order government. More recently, in the throne speech, it promised this bill. This has been in its platform since 2006. We are glad it is here now, but let us really take a look at what it means.

When I hear the term, “a government of law and order”, I really have to shake my head. I heard the minister speak earlier, and I was thinking that there were commitments made in the last election to put additional police out on the streets. In my beautiful province of British Columbia, in my riding of Newton—North Delta, in Surrey and North Delta, my constituents tell me over and over again that they are feeling betrayed because the government did not deliver the additional policing it promised.

However, I am the first one to say that policing is not the only answer. We have to look at many other ways of tackling crime in our neighbourhoods.

I have regular coffee shop meetings with my constituents, and because of a horrific murder in my riding, the 26th in a year, the community galvanized. There have been many meetings, and at every meeting my constituents tell me that they do not feel very safe and they are very worried. Seniors tell me that all the time.

I heard the minister on how we can save millions or billions of dollars with preventative programs. I would say that here is an example of where we are failing to put more police on the streets and look at prevention programs.

It is interesting that the minister strongly supports prevention, but when I talk to the huge range of different service providers in my riding,I find that their program support services are being cut dramatically, some by 100%. A lot of the services that used to be available to help youth reintegrate into society, lead a positive lifestyle, and enter into meaningful employment have not been funded or have been cut.

When I look at the mental health services that are available, I do not actually see any investment, even though we all stand in this House and talk about the great cost of mental health issues across our communities to our health services, our social services, and our penal system. We are all aware of that. Once again, where are the resources to help those who suffer from mental illness? Where are the resources, in a serious way, for those who are dealing with addictions, so that we can help them once again lead a more successful life? I have heard a lot about this.

I have a lot of respect for my colleague across the way, who has done a lot of work on human trafficking. I think everyone in this House would agree that it is a heinous crime and something we need to tackle in a serious way in the international community, because it is an international problem and we need to play our part.

Today we are talking about victims. What is it that victims need? Victims have been telling us that they need access to services and they need support. Many of them also want access to parole hearings and to be informed about the status of prosecution. They just want to know where the case is at.

A mother whose child died very tragically would check in with me regularly, asking if so-and-so was about to come up for parole. Every time parole came up, that mom went through all the pain and agony as if it had happened just that day.

We do not need to provide patronizing words. We need to provide real support and real processes that are going to work. It is not just for the sake of politically saying that we have this bill and we have done our piece, because until we provide the resources and put mechanisms in place to implement the bill, it is just words. I really do not want victims to feel further victimized because they feel that we played some kind of game with them.

I will read some quotes.

This is what Steve Sullivan, the first victims ombudsman, had to say about the bill on the CBC news on April 3, 2014. What he said rings alarm bells for me and makes me look at the bill more closely.

The former victims ombudsman charged Thursday that the Minister of Justice has over-promised and under-delivered on the Conservative government's victims bill of rights.

Those are not easy words for anyone to say, but I can see why he would have said that when he saw that there were no resources attached to this bill.

Also, there is Lori Triano-Antidormi, a mother of a murdered child. I cannot imagine the pain that this mom has gone through. She said this to CBC news on April 3, 2014, just last month. She stated that not everyone believes the bill will be effective. She went on to say that the bill will create false hope for victims.

We have to remember that Lori Triano-Antidormi is not only a victim of crime, but she is also a psychologist and helps to treat others.

The article further stated:

“My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system,” she said. She says that, right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. “The crown has the final say.” Triano-Antidormi said if the government were to make that change, it would only fuel vengeance in the victim “which from a physiological perspective doesn't help their healing or recovery.”

I can only imagine the kind of pain this mother suffered. Despite all her personal pain, she has asked us to reflect on what we are doing here, and I am sure we will be doing that when we get to the committee stage.

L'Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on April 3, 2014, basically said that this bill may provide real leverage and not just a false promise to be dangled before our eyes. However, then it went on to say it really rests on making resources available to victims once their rights have been infringed.

Once again, we keep going back to that resource item. Without that resource item, it points to how hollow this bill could be.

It went on to say the governments have a responsibility to recognize victims' rights, but also to help them exercise those rights. Just stipulating the rights without providing assistance for that next stage makes it very hard and almost hollow, so the association is very worried about that.

Clayton Ruby, criminal law expert, said:

They need rehabilitative programs and services, and compensation from the government, and they’ve dropped all those expensive demands in favour of shallow symbolism.

Frank Addario stated:

...the...government’s agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect. It’s cynicism masquerading as policy.

I am going to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt because when we get to the committee stage to try to fix this bill with magnificent amendments, I know the Conservatives will pay attention and listen to some of the concerns we have. I am hoping they have been paying attention to some of the feedback out there as well, not just to the bits they want to hear but also to the rest.

Sharlene Lange, a victim's mother, stated:

Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth.... Rights need to go beyond the criminal process for this bill to even be a bill of rights.

She said she will continue to lobby until true financial compensation for victims exists.

There is absolutely no doubt that we need a bill of rights for victims. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice Canada found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.

With that in mind, I would urge my colleagues across the way to look at amendments at the committee stage, seriously consider what the bill really means, and make sure that resources and implementation mechanisms are in place so that victims truly feel supported and this does not turn out to be a sham.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and for her indication that she would be supporting the bill at second reading and allowing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which I sit on, to examine the bill in detail. I can assure her that the bill will be examined in detail by her colleagues and mine and by colleagues from the other parties at committee.

The member mentioned that we need to listen to the victims, and she quoted a few of them. She may know of Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son was tragically murdered by Clifford Olson many years ago. She has been a tireless advocate for victims of crime for many years and she started an organization called Victims of Violence.

After the introduction of this bill, she said:

Victims of Violence is very pleased that the government has indicated it's interest and intention to act in a variety of criminal justice and public security subject areas on behalf of victims of crime. In particular, we are pleased that the victims of crime now have a federal Victims Bill of Rights that is codified in law which is a major step for victims in Canada. The Bill contains worthwhile steps to confirm the importance of victims receiving information and having their voices heard. We are also pleased to see that the Bill contains a number of recommendations that have been put forward by victims over the past number of years.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure to work with my colleague across the way at committee and I know how seriously he takes his work. I really appreciate his putting forward that question.

I need him to know that is why I am supporting the bill going to committee stage, because even though the bill is not enough the way it is right now, it is a step in the right direction. It is a piece of legislation that many are disappointed with, but others are saying that at least it is a little baby step and it is the beginning.

In that way, let us make sure that when we get to the committee stage, we strengthen it by putting real teeth in it and by also making sure that resources are there so that victims get the support they need. They do not just need words; they also need support, and that support is what helps to heal them and rehabilitate them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments that victims deserve more than just platitudes and statements.

We would like to see things that are far more tangible. In certain situations, for example, when I was chair of a justice committee, we tried to move into the area of restorative justice, whereby in certain situations victims can be a part of coming up with the dispositions of those individuals who caused the harm in whatever fashion it might have been.

In fact, there are many different things that government can be doing outside of legislation. The member made reference to a commitment, for example, to increase the number of police officers. It builds up an expectation. In Winnipeg, I know many police officers felt they were going to see an increase, and that never materialized.

I would argue that the reason back then—and I do not know if it has been put in place recently—was that no real negotiations took place between the province and the federal government over how that would be implemented. Yes, money was flagged for it, but it was never really acted upon.

Talk is cheap. Our constituents want to see more action, and the member might want to provide comment on the whole idea of action.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just as my colleague has said, there were all kinds of commitments made during the last election for additional policing.

It is not just my riding, but other ridings that have had problems with safety and crime are asking the same questions about what happened.

My colleagues across the way, including the minister, mentioned earlier that they brought in mandatory minimum sentencing. If we could really end crime through mandatory minimum sentencing, then the prisons in the U.S. would not be overcrowded. The U.S. would not be spending such a major part of its budget on prisons, and there would have been a decrease in crime. Research shows that the U.S. is not seeing that decrease in crime. It is now looking more towards the rehabilitative approach that we have had in the past, rather than a purely punitive approach.

When we are looking at action, it starts quite early. It starts with the kind of investment we make in preschool education, with the kind of investment we make in K-12, and it also starts, when our students get off the tracks, with the kind of resources we provide to help them get back on the right track. It also means providing support for those suffering from mental health issues. The provinces have been cutting those programs because of funding.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also support the bill. I take the same sort of view that my hon. colleague does: to support the bill, get it to second reading and hope for amendments.

I noted the member quoted from the first of the federal ombudsmen for victims of crime. I commend the current administration for creating that position.

However, the current federal ombudsman for victims of crime put out a statement on Bill C-32. I was familiar with the recommendations that went forward. That office had made 30 recommendations for what should be in a bill that spoke to the rights of victims of crime. Of the 30 recommendations put forward by that office, only four have been fully contained in this bill.

One I thought was particularly notable, and I hope we can get to it at committee for an amendment. I will not be a member of that committee, but I urge members to take note of it. It is that in order to benefit from any of the so-called rights that victims of crime will get under this bill, they need to know that they have to register themselves with the parole office or with the correctional service as a victim to get on the list to get the notification of such things as when the person who perpetrated the crime against them is being released and so on.

Surely we need to include in this bill very clear notification, clear communication to victims of how they get their rights and how they exercise those rights. That key piece is missing.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, there is much that is missing from this bill. That is why, when it gets to committee, I am sure there will be amendments galore to try to fix it.

My colleague just pointed out a reality that we face with a government that keeps moving closure and keeps shutting down debate. It refuses to listen to experts. An ombudsman appointed by the government makes 30 recommendations on what must be included in a bill, and the government rejects 26 of those items out of the 30 and cherry-picks the 4.

That actually adds to why I am so concerned about the inadequacies of this bill, and why we need to take our time to study it. However, as the government has already moved lengthy sittings and closure on all kinds of issues, I am not too hopeful that we will get to debate this in a meaningful way, to make some real changes and not be left with a sham.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta. Her speech was very eloquent, and we should really examine it closely because she raised many very interesting points. I would like to ask her a quick question.

This bill proposes to create a complaints mechanism for victims. An agency would deal with those complaints at either the federal or provincial level. However, there is no funding for this. The federal government is once again mandating the provinces to spend money.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that the federal government is always downloading costs onto the provinces. I would also like her to talk about the impact this will have on the services the provinces can provide.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very brief. This is another example of a government that cannot work with partner groups and cannot work with the opposition to address some very critical issues.

I would say that there has probably been very little consultation with the provinces. They will be surprised at this. They will be left with the costs and everything. I am worried about what that is going to mean. It is going to mean that nothing is going to happen.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley West.

Every so often, members of Parliament see a bill that says to them, “This is why I was elected to Parliament. This is why I came to Ottawa on behalf of my constituents”. For me, the victims bill of rights act is one of those bills.

Victims have been calling for these protections and these rights for years. For far too long, our justice system has focused on the rights of the accused and ignored the victims. Their loved ones have been murdered, they have been assaulted and harassed, and their homes have been broken into, yet the justice system often just treats them like just another witness.

I am very pleased to speak on this important bill, which would enshrine certain rights for victims of crime into federal legislation. In so doing, it is expected that the reforms would significantly improve the way our criminal justice system responds to victims, while at the same time recognizing the important role that they can and should play in the criminal justice system.

In the brief time available to me, I would like to focus on the general provisions and definitions and the primacy clause included in this bill.

The first thing to note is that bill proposes a definition of “victim” that recognizes the physical and emotional harms suffered as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence. It also recognizes that crime results in property damage and economic loss to victims. This definition would further inform the proposed changes to the definition of victim in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I support this broad definition, as it accurately reflects the realities of victims of crime.

This bill, and the rights contained therein, would apply to victims of all offences under the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, as well as to several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and criminal offences in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In unfortunate cases where the victim is deceased or incapable of exercising his or her rights, another person would be able to act on his or her behalf. For example, in cases where the victims are children or have suffered so much trauma that they are incapable of exercising their rights, someone such as a parent or a spouse would be able to speak for them and ensure that the victim's voice is not lost.

Every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard. The bill would put these rights on paper and entrench them within the law.

However, this bill would not allow for the accused or an offender, including those persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or those who are unfit to stand trial, to be considered a victim in the offence in question, or to act on behalf of a victim. This is an important safeguard against the potential misuse of this bill.

The rights proposed in this bill would apply to victims involved in the Canadian criminal justice system. This means that tourists, temporary and permanent residents, and Canadian citizens could invoke their rights while they are in Canada. The rights of permanent residents and citizens could also be invoked while they are abroad. For example, a retired couple who have been the victims of fraud in Canada but who live in Florida during the winter could rely upon the proposed rights to receive information about the status of any ongoing Canadian investigation.

This bill would make it clear that the victims of crime have rights at every stage of the criminal justice system, from the investigation of an offence right through to the conditional release process, including during proceedings before review boards for accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or those who are unfit to stand trial. This would ensure that victims have rights, even in cases that are unresolved or where no accused or offender has yet been identified, such as in the case of families of missing persons.

I had the opportunity to serve on the special committee for the study into violence against indigenous women, the report of which was just recently tabled in the House of Commons. In one of those meetings, we heard from the families of victims of some of these indigenous women who have disappeared. Many of these women, as we know from the RCMP report, have been murdered. The families told us that they need the rights that are enshrined in this victims bill of rights. They need to know what is happening at every step of the police investigation into the disappearance of their loved ones. This is something that they have not always experienced in the past, and these rights would now be enshrined in this law. That is one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this bill.

Even if some victims of crime choose not to interact with the criminal justice system and exercise their rights, this bill would ultimately be beneficial to all victims and all Canadians. This bill would increase victims' awareness of their rights and enhance awareness of victims' needs among criminal justice professionals and the general public through the online resources and training opportunities facilitated by the government. Right now, there is no document that victims can consult if they want to know all of their rights within the federal justice system.

This bill would ensure that victims' rights are applied in a reasonable manner and in a way that is not likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice or ministerial discretion; endanger the life or safety of any individual; or cause injury to international relations, national defence, or national security. As this bill makes clear, victims would be informed and involved at every stage of the criminal justice process. That is very important. I myself have been a victim of crime and I know that throughout the investigative and prosecutorial processes I had to learn about what was going on through the news media because I was not receiving that information directly from the justice system.

These rights would be implemented through mechanisms provided by law. Indeed, these technical changes would give life to the rights contained in the Canadian victims bill of rights in a manner that is consistent with the unique constitutional and operational realities of the criminal justice system. As we know, the criminal justice system is a shared responsibility, with the federal government having constitutional authority over the criminal law and criminal procedure, and the provinces being responsible for the administration of justice. Accordingly, many of the proposed amendments would be implemented through the actions of the provinces. This bill respects the constitutional division of powers. This government does not intend nor wish to encroach upon provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

This bill does not seek to impede efficiencies in the criminal justice system. Inefficiencies and undue delays in the system would not serve the best interests of the victims. For example, delays in the system could result in charges being dropped and proceedings being stayed. An accused person must be tried within a reasonable time and no victim of crime should ever be denied justice because of delays in the system.

This bill would also provide internal safeguards so that authorities could always act in the public interest when victims' rights are being exercised. Authorities must maintain the ability to protect both victims and the Canadian public at all times.

Thus, this bill would also provide transformational change for victims while upholding the rule of law and respecting principles such as police and prosecutorial discretion. For instance, it is a well-recognized constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to instigate, continue, or terminate prosecutions. This bill respects that independence, and at the same time grants victims a greater voice in the process.

Let me also elaborate on the primacy clause proposed in this bill, which signals that victims' rights are to be taken seriously and given meaningful effect by all in the criminal justice system. It proposes as a general rule that all federal legislation would be required to the extent possible to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Canadian victims bill of rights. In circumstances where there is clear and irreconcilable conflict between a federal law and the Canadian victims bill of rights, the provisions of this bill would prevail. Victims' rights would be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever conflicts arose between this bill and laws contained in other federal acts.

The Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act would be expressly exempt from the primacy clause because they are also quasi-constitutional. These acts protect the rights and interests of all Canadians, including victims of crime, and they also have a clear link to the fundamental rights and freedoms found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I firmly believe that this bill is the necessary catalyst for creating a culture of change in the criminal justice system so that the needs of victims of crime can be better met. Given the progressive and vital nature of this bill, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support it.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask the Minister of Public Safety a question.

In his speech, the minister gave us the impression that there is no budget allocated for this program. He even went farther by saying in response to a question that in general, the provinces have good services to help victims.

I think the lack of budget is problematic. The provinces have their own expenses and their own programs. Of course, it is a good step forward to create a federal program from a policy based on a new law. However, the fact that there is no budget is a real problem, and it will pose a major challenge for the provinces, which will have to add this to their list of responsibilities.

I would like to know whether the provinces were consulted.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you just pointed out, I am sure the hon. member knows I am not the Minister of Public Safety, but I thank her for the promotion, in any event.

She will probably know, if she read economic action plan 2014, that it commits to supporting the implementation of a Canadian victims bill of rights. She will remember that the victim surcharge was doubled. That goes to the provinces for the administration of justice, including supporting the victims bill of rights. I believe she and her colleagues voted against that, which is unfortunate.

In recent years, the federal government has created the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. It has created the federal victims strategy, providing more than $120 million for programs and services that help give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It has allocated more than $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres, since 2010, to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime. It has, as I mentioned earlier, doubled the victim surcharge, which provides funding for these services.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the member expand on his comments about victims who are children when he talked about an advocacy fund.

I do think it is important that we recognize that, yes, where we can improve upon legislation to protect our victims and provide rights, that is generally and principally a step in right direction.

However, having said that, I think we need to be more aggressive in terms of how we can, in a more tangible fashion, provide the resources that might be necessary; or as I said earlier this evening, are we really doing enough to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, thereby preventing victims from becoming victims?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned child youth advocacy centres in his question, and I am really pleased he did that, in terms of child services for child victims of crime.

One of the most important things our government has done is support the creation of these child youth advocacy centres. There is a very important one in Toronto called the Boost child and youth advocacy centre. I hope our government will be able to support one in my Region of Peel, which is the cities of Mississauga and Brampton. A plan is being worked on to prepare one there very soon, and I hope it will be supported by the Department of Justice in the future.

On April 3, Karyn Kennedy, executive director of the Boost centre in Toronto, said the following about the bill of rights:

Boost supports the work of the Federal Government in creating the Victims Bill of Rights. This legislation will give victims a much stronger voice and a greater presence in the criminal justice system.

She further said:

We have been part of several consultations on the bill over the past year and are pleased to see the progress made.

I think that statement indicates that those who provide victim services to children see this as a big step forward in the services they provide.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Mississauga—Erindale for his contribution this evening and for sharing his time with me.

I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. Today I will focus my remarks on the proposed remedies provisions of the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The Canadian victims bill of rights is aimed at ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect during the various stages of the criminal justice process and that their voices are, in fact, heard.

Criminal justice professionals play a crucial role in the delivery of an effective criminal justice system. They do their jobs very well, often under very difficult circumstances, including dealing with victims with compassion and respect, but it does happen—and this is what victims told us—that they can feel that their rights have been breached or that they have been treated inappropriately. The Canadian victims bill of rights would ensure that there is a way to right a wrong when it happens.

The Minister of Justice consulted with victims and other stakeholders across the country from April to October 2013. Significant input was received, including in terms of options for a complaint resolution process. The Canadian victims bill of rights proposes a complete resolution process that is based on the principle that the particular agency responsible for the breach should be the first to receive the complaint. Subsection 25(1) of the bill makes this very clear.

Section 25 would also require all federal institutions involved in the criminal justice process to have mechanisms in place to receive complaints, to make recommendations for addressing any violations of rights, and to inform victims of the results of a complaint. This would include, for example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the Correctional Service of Canada.

Similar mechanisms are also in place in agencies that are under provincial and municipal responsibility, such as the provincial Crown prosecution services and municipal police forces.

This approach has many benefits. It would help foster the sort of remedial responses that victims have indicated would be meaningful to them. During consultations with stakeholders and victims groups, many suggested that in response to a breach of a victim's rights, the agency responsible should issue an apology directly to the victim for the misconduct. They also indicated that the agency responsible should fix the problem so that it does not happen again to another victim.

In other words, victims want remedies to include positive, responsive steps to change the culture or practices within an organization. They want remedies to be forward-looking and to address problems that have been detected. They want to spare other families from having to endure the same kind of mistreatment in the future.

Victims are best served by sharing their concerns directly with the agencies that are tasked with protecting them and by encouraging those agencies to see that every effort must be made to ensure that victims, as an integral part of the criminal justice process, are treated with the courtesy, compassion, and respect they deserve throughout every step of the process.

Apologies and improved practices are key elements that each criminal justice agency must consider directly as part of their responsibilities toward victims and toward Canadians more generally.

This approach would also have the benefit that criminal justice agencies would treat remedies for a breach of victims rights as part and parcel of their overarching obligations. It would also help keep costs manageable, as every such agency would already have in place a process for receiving complaints.

It is entirely possible that victims who made a complaint about the conduct of police, a prosecutor, or a correctional institution might not be satisfied with the response they received. Victims would, therefore, also be able to take their complaint to an authority that has jurisdiction over the agency that breached the right. Whether the agency is under federal or provincial authority, there are supervisory organizations that can take a fresh look at that complaint.

In the case of a breach by a federal agency, if a complaint is not resolved to the satisfaction of the victim, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime would assist victims with complaints and work informally with relevant federal agencies to address the breach and improve practices for dealing with victims of crime.

In regard to an allegation of infringement by a provincial or municipal agency, the bill respects the split constitutional jurisdiction and proposes that the applicable remedy is the remedy set out in the provincial law, policies, or practices. Provincially, remedial options may include ombudsmen for the province, specialized victims offices, or designated police oversight bodies, for instance.

The victims bill of rights is the result of a balanced approach. Under the bill, victims of crime would not have standing to make complaints about breaches of their rights in court within the context of criminal proceedings against the accused. It is important to ensure that criminal trials are not sidetracked to deal with government agencies that allegedly have infringed the rights of victims. The criminal trial process must stay focused on determining the guilt or innocence of the person accused of a crime. State mistreatment of crime victims must be appropriately dealt with in its own right through separate processes.

I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this bill. We have heard tonight from a number of members on all sides of the House who support the bill and intend to vote in its favour. It would give victims a strong voice in the criminal justice system through the creation of rights for victims of crime and a strong remedial scheme to address breaches of those rights.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who seems to be deeply committed to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I have a number of questions I would like to ask him about the bill, but I will keep it to one brief and specific question.

Could he give the House an explanation for the delay between the time the promise was made to draft a victims bill of rights and the time the bill was actually introduced? If memory serves, the promise was made in 2006 during the election when the Conservatives managed to take power. Why did they wait so long before introducing Bill C-32, which we are discussing today? What was the reason for that delay?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been committed to finding resolutions to crime and to fighting crime since we came to office in 2006. The Canadian victims bill of rights presents no different an approach to finding a resolution to issues that are important to Canadians. Clearly, we have been addressing crime and issues to reduce crime since we arrived in government. Many of those crime bills that we have been so aggressively supporting throughout that timeframe have, regrettably, been opposed by the opposition.

This particular legislation would bring a different focus toward addressing the needs of victims. This bill addresses the issues that need to be completed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not necessarily answer the question that was posed, and it was a legitimate question.

The Conservatives have talked for years about bringing in a victims bill of rights. They have made election platform issues of it. It was referenced as long ago as the 2006 election. I do not know if, in fact, that it was an election platform issue in 2006.

Could my colleague tell us to the best of his knowledge if it was an election platform issue for the Conservative Party in 2006? Could he provide some feedback as to why he believes it has taken this long to get the bill brought forward, if in fact that is the case?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer with regard to 2006 specifically. I did run in the election in 2006. Clearly, creating safer streets and communities for Canadians was integral in that campaign.

As far as the Canadian victims bill of rights goes, let us address some of the issues and what we have accomplished over the course of that time frame. We established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We created the federal victims strategy, with more than $120 million allocated since 2007 for programs and services to help victims and give them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. We allocated more than $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres. We introduced legislation to double the victims' surcharge and to make it mandatory. We eliminated the so-called faint hope clause.

Victims have been central and core to everything we have done since we have come into power. I clearly believe this bill brings that focus to fruition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

We have before us a bill that is supposed to expand victims' rights. It is a step in the right direction to improve the lot of victims. With all due respect, and contrary to what the member for Don Valley West just mentioned, the NDP believes in victims' rights. We always want victims to have real rights, not meaningless rights.

The problem with this bill is that some aspects are bogus, starting with the fact that it took a year to hold a consultation. Several recommendations were put forward during that year but, unfortunately, just four of them were included in the legislation.

The government wants to establish a new process so that victims can assert their rights, but they will have to go through a process created by the provinces. Once again, the government is going to ask the provinces to spend money on a federal bill. If this legislation is really going to create a victims bill of rights, resources should be allocated, but that is not provided in the bill before us.

The bill is supposed to expand victims' rights and the definition of “victim”. This is a good idea in itself. It deserves a debate in committee after second reading. This bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release. Once again, at first glance, this seems to be a very good idea. It must be examined in committee so that we can hear experts on this issue. I think most experts will fully agree on that provision.

The bill also seeks to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the court informs victims of any agreement reached between the accused and the prosecutor, once a guilty plea is accepted. I am looking forward to hearing experts on this aspect, because it deserves a great deal of attention. Legal experts will have a lot to say on this issue. I believe this bill warrants the attention of the House and of the experts. I hope some witnesses will have a lot to say about this.

The bill 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. This changes a fundamental aspect of our system and it also deserves a lot of attention. Until now, it was always presumed that a person did not have to testify against his or her spouse. I am looking forward to hearing the experts on this provision.

I am going to quote Michael Spratt, who said:

Bill C-32 also amends sections of the Canada Evidence Act dealing with spousal incompetence compellability. Historically the Crown could not compel (force) an accused's spouse to testify. This is no longer the case. Under bill C-32 no person is incompetent or uncompellable to testify for the prosecution because of marriage. The new legislation does not, however, remove spousal privilege - found in section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act. A spouse still cannot be forced to testify about spousal communications.

Here is the interesting point, “They can however be forced to testify about all other manner of issues--including issues that may impact on the sanctity of the spousal relationship”. As Mr. Spratt points out, “It is unclear what this has to do with victims rights”.

To continue the quote, it states:

It is interesting to pause to note that: It is also unclear why the government did not amend the wording of section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act. This section speaks of 'husband' and 'wife'...

I would like to come back to this. I am a bit disappointed and discouraged that our Canadian laws still make reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. I thought that was already resolved: a marriage can be between two men, two women or a man and a woman. Once again, we see that Canadians laws unfortunately have not been amended to reflect the new reality that has existed for many years.

I hope that the government will take this opportunity to amend the act to reflect the reality of the times. Society has evolved, and unfortunately, the House seems to have a very hard time evolving at the same time.

Let us get back to the bill. I look forward to hearing what the experts have to say about the fact that spouses will now be able to testify against each other. This could fundamentally change the relationship between married couples. This deserves to be studied.

Another provision in this bill would create a mechanism to enable victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments for a denial of any of their rights under the bill of rights. This could be at the provincial or federal level, but most rights fall under the jurisdiction of provincial courts.

If victims file complaints through a new mechanism, this will create a new bureaucracy, largely at the provincial level. Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill about funding for this bureaucracy. We have to assume that the province will once again have to find its own resources to pay for something imposed in a federal law.

It is wrong to think that the provinces have unlimited amounts of money to spend. The federal government is once again offloading a responsibility onto the provinces without providing any funding. That is unfortunate. We see this too often in this House, and we are seeing it in the bill we are debating tonight.

I hope that the government will examine the situation carefully and provide funding for the bill of rights it is proposing today. It does not mean much to create a bill of rights that does not include funding, especially for the less fortunate victims. These victims do not have the means to exercise their rights. An inaccessible right is an illusory right.

In a previous Parliament, this same government eliminated a program that gave victims recourse under the charter. That is very unfortunate, because once again, if a charter bestows rights that are inaccessible for financial reasons, those rights are completely illusory.

We in Canada believe in our charter as well as in the bill of rights being debated today, but the fact remains that no money means no rights. It is a well-known fact. When it comes to asserting their rights, underprivileged people need more support than privileged people.

This bill does not go far enough. I hope that expert witnesses will point that out in committee and suggest improvements to the bill.

One of the last points I would like to mention is that the bill will codify the right to make a restitution order. It will also “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”.

We see that, ultimately, the governor in council will get to decide what is a reasonable time. Although that is not unacceptable, there is some detail lacking. I hope the committee will clarify that issue.

I would also like to add that many people have publicly shared testimonials about this bill. I planned to discuss a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, which also raised a number of questions about the bill, but I will save that discussion for another time.

I hope that the committee will take into account the testimonials we have heard so far, as a way to hear from more citizens and experts. This bill deserves our consideration and support at second reading, so that it can benefit from a more thorough study.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising one of the aspects of this victims bill of rights that is concerning to me and to others, and that is removing the spousal immunity from testimony. As he and others have noted, this could lead to women who are in abusive relationships being afraid to report to police that they have been victimized by an abusive partner for fear they will be forced into testimony with that partner. That is one aspect of the bill.

Another aspect that brings people into close contact with a potential abuser is that the bill does not require that victims use, for instance, at parole hearings, separate entrances and have an ability to be isolated from the accused.

In these two instances, it could actually re-traumatize the victim. In the case of removing spousal immunity, it could result in women choosing not to report crimes when they have been the victim in a marriage relationship.

I would like to hear any comments. I certainly hope we can get this amended in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very appropriate question. It is worrisome that we could be putting people at risk by changing an element that has been constant in the legal system in our country for many years. Those kinds of changes need to be addressed and need to be studied very carefully before they are put into place. I share the member's concerns. We need to address this issue at committee.

I look forward to expert testimony. A lot of women's rights groups are going to have some interesting things to say about that particular aspect.

Again, we need to discuss this bill further. The idea of this bill, in principle, is a good one; however, it seems to lack an awful lot of forethought. We need to develop these ideas further. As the member points out, quite rightly, we might be putting at risk the very victims we are trying to defend.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for raising some extremely important points about Bill C-32 in his speech.

I completely agree with him that it was about time that a bill was introduced and debated. For years the Conservative government promised a victims bill of rights.

In his speech, he mentioned the fact that no funding has been allocated for the Canadian victims bill of rights. I did some research on that. On the Prime Minister's website, there is mention of the right to restitution under the Canadian victims bill of rights:

The Government will provide dedicated funding to support the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights through existing resources as well as the allocation of new federal resources.

Unfortunately, the resources have not yet materialized.

What does my colleague think of the fact that the Prime Minister promised to make funds available from new and existing resources, but, once again, we have yet to see the money?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She has raised an interesting point.

The Conservatives have been promising for several years to bring forward such a bill. They have gotten a lot of mileage out of suggesting that there would be a bill to protect victims. They recently held bogus consultations. Quite frankly, I do not know if the Conservatives would be taken seriously by victims groups.

We are seeing the result in the House. Very few recommendations made during the consultations were included in the bill before us. One of the recommendations made mention of the fact that the mechanisms that will be created to help victims require funding. If no funding is provided, it is obvious that that the rights are window dressing and an illusion.

I hope that the government will think about the fact that it has promised for eight years to introduce a bill here in the House. I hope that they will keep all the promises they made in the past and create a Canadian victims bill of rights worthy of that name.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in tonight's debate on Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his eloquent speech. He has already highlighted many issues that are important to the NDP.

I feel compelled to repeat something he said right off the bat, namely that, in our opinion, support for victims is essential. It is a fundamental issue for the NDP. Some Conservative members have tried to suggest otherwise, simply because our vision of support for victims of crime in Canada is slightly different from their own.

It is important that we put the focus back where it belongs, namely victims' rights, period. That is the priority. We have been hearing about a Canadian victims bill of rights for ages now. In fact, it has been eight years. The Conservatives first mentioned the idea during the 2006 election campaign. We have been waiting since then. Indeed, many press conferences and photo ops have come and gone—methods to which we have become accustomed, as the Conservatives have relied on them in many other files, like the F-35s, to name but one.

We had to wait until today for them to introduce a bill which, at first glance, seems to respond to many of the needs expressed by victims. However, when we dig a bit deeper we can see that there are still some flaws in the bill that was introduced.

We believe that this is an important issue. That is why we will support the bill at second reading and ensure that it gets sent to committee so that we can make the necessary improvements to it.

Numerous experts, families of victims and victims themselves have publicly shared their opinion on the bill. There is a sense of satisfaction about the fact that progress is slowly being made. However, there are still some elements that need to be amended.

The bill, as it stands, would codify federal rights for victims of crime—namely, the right to information, protection, participation and restitution—and it would amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canada Evidence Act in order to incorporate those rights.

The key changes that are part of the bill before us today would expand the definition of “victim” to include physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss. It would also clarify the fact that a victim's spouse may testify if the victim is deceased or incapable of acting on their own behalf, as long as the couple has been in a conjugal relationship for more than a year.

The bill would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to view a photo of and certain information about the offender at the time of release and to obtain more details about the release date and conditions, and various other things like that.

At first glance, as I said earlier, it sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, with the Conservatives, the devil is often in the details. To be quite honest, I am very interested to see what will happen in committee. The government has not toned down its rhetoric: victims first, and tough on crime. We hear the words but, unfortunately, they are rarely followed by action.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence for a few months now. During today's meeting, we looked at sexual abuse within the Canadian Armed Forces. Where was the Minister of National Defence? He was not there. When the article in L'actualité was published, he issued a public statement in which he expressed his anger and surprise even though the government has known for years, at least since 1998, perhaps before, that sexual misconduct occurs within the Canadian Forces. Unfortunately, the victims of these acts are all too often women, who are already under-represented within the armed forces.

The current framework for filing a complaint and getting support is far from adequate. Even so, the government has shown no leadership on this issue. A Canadian victims bill of rights is all well and good, but it is not enough. These men and women, who are ready to risk their lives for Canada and to defend our cherished values around the world and who experience sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, are completely abandoned by the government.

It has washed its hands of the whole thing and is trying to blame the Canadian Armed Forces themselves. I think it is completely hypocritical of the government to say it will do anything to protect victims' rights, no matter who they are or where they are, then turn around and just ignore a situation that is resulting in an untold number of victims. Apparently five individuals in the Canadian Armed Forces become victims of sexual misconduct every day. That is a huge number, but the current government is not showing any leadership.

I appreciate the initiative to introduce a Canadian victims bill of rights, but the government needs to go beyond words and rhetoric. We need a really effective charter that will guarantee that people can exercise their due rights once they become victims of crime.

I hope that the government will go beyond photo ops and rhetoric. A little earlier, my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine mentioned a major problem with the bill, and that is the fact that no financial resources have been allocated in order to implement it. All of the responsibility for guaranteeing these rights is being put on the provinces and territories. Once again, the government is shirking its responsibilities. The Conservatives talk about a great principle that is important to them. That is all well and good, but it will be up to someone else to deal with that responsibility and take care of victims.

I hope that this major problem will be dealt with in committee. Earlier, my colleague from Alfred-Pellan asked the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine a question. She clearly indicated that the federal government had already promised funding, first to implement the Canadian victims bill of rights and then to compensate victims of crime. However, there is still no money being allocated. Were these just empty promises made by the government? I hope not.

The Conservatives are always saying that we need to be tough on crime and make life harder for offenders who are in prison. However, they are not prepared to take this initiative all the way. I find that disappointing.

The Canadian victims bill of rights responds to certain requests made by victims and victims groups. However, there is nothing in the bill of rights that allows for the creation of legal obligations for people working within the justice system. The bill contains a potential mechanism for filing complaints with federal departments, agencies and organizations that play a role in the justice system when victims' rights have been violated. However, once again, there is very little information about this mechanism. That is rather troubling. If the government is going to propose such measures, then it has to support them and make sure they have a tangible impact, which does not seem to be the case right now.

Despite the problems we have raised, it is important to the NDP to ensure that victims of crime across the country are guaranteed certain rights and that they have a more effective voice in the justice system, which is not currently the case.

I am under the impression that the Conservative government is trying to score political points at the expense of victims. I hope that the government will prove me wrong with the work that is done in committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her speech, which, as usual, came from the heart. I know that victims rights are extremely important to my colleague, as they are to all my NDP colleagues.

A number of questions remain unanswered when it comes to the Conservative government's intention to provide funding for the Canadian victims bill of rights. The lack of consultation with the provinces and territories is a recurring theme for the government across the way and we are seeing that again here, unfortunately, with Bill C-32.

I did a bit of research and found that the provinces already have some provisions, programs, and charters. For example, the Province of Ontario has had its own Victims Bill of Rights since 1995.

What does my colleague think of the Conservative government's lack of consultation? Is there overlap with the provinces and territories?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. I had the chance to sit with her a few times in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I know that she does extraordinary work in this committee and the issue before us here today is very important to her.

Indeed, this lack of consultation is a recurring theme with this government. The practical effect of the victims bill of rights as currently presented is simply to harmonize federal legislation with what already exists in many provinces and territories.

In fact, the government did not go to the provinces and territories to ask them how everything might be improved or to find out what they really need to protect and guarantee victims' rights. The Conservative government ignored all that. They are in the habit of introducing a bill to us as a done deal and then maybe consulting and listening afterward, but usually not. They did indeed do some consultations in person between April and October 2013, and online from May to September 2013.

However, did they sit down with the justice ministers and public safety ministers from the various provinces and territories? I highly doubt it and that is obvious in the bill before us.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, any discussion about victims and crime should also include the provinces. Justice and law enforcement are basically under provincial jurisdiction, aside from the RCMP. Therefore, it is essential that we consult the provinces about any legislation regarding justice and victims' rights.

Victims need to be protected. This issue is very important to me and to all New Democrats.

What approach does my colleague think the government should take in consulting with the provinces on legal matters and the protection of victims' rights?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for his excellent question.

It is very important for any good Canadian government to consult with the provinces and territories. We live in a federation. This is not a unitary government, and therefore we must consult the other levels of government before introducing a bill that could have a direct impact on their jurisdictions.

That is a basic notion of federalism that I did not think I would have to explain to the House at this time of night. Unfortunately, the government opposite could really benefit from this approach, since it always seems to skip that step.

The Conservatives introduced a bill but left out the provinces. They did not ask the provinces what resources they would need or what the bill should focus on. There were no consultations. A few experts were consulted, but the provinces and territories were ignored. That makes absolutely no sense.

The House resumed from June 3 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-32 this afternoon. It is really interesting to be able to stand and recognize that the government has actually done a fairly good job on this piece of legislation. It is one of those things for which time allocation should not be required. It is one of things that, I believe, is not controversial.

I would look to the minister, who has done a fairly decent job in bringing the legislation forward. From what I understand through our critic, the minister reached out to different regions of our country to get a better sense of what this bill should look like and, ultimately, brought in the legislation.

I cannot help but think that there are, no doubt, many other pieces of legislation that would have benefited from the same sort of attitude in terms of reaching out to Canadians for input. In particular, there are the changes to the Elections Act that we had.

It is important to recognize that this legislation would build upon previous work from the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien governments. Victims' rights have always been important. In fact, our critic provided me with one document that makes reference to a revised version of the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, which was done in 2003. That provided great detail on the principles to guide legislators and service providers in the promotion of access to justice, fair treatment, and the provision of assistance for victims of crime.

Just given the number of points that are listed here, there might be some value in me reading the list. The document, referenced in the preamble to the victims bill of rights now before the House, identified the following principles as intended to promote the fair treatment of victims.

They are as follows:

1. Victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

2. The privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible.

3. All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims.

4. The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation.

5. Information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes.

6. Victims should be given information, in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress and final outcome of the proceedings; and the status of the offender in the correctional system.

7. Information should be provided to victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation.

8. The views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures.

9. The needs, concerns and diversity of victims should be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services, and in related education and training.

10. Information should be provided to victims about available options to raise their concerns when they believe that these principles have not been followed.

In 2005, the Liberal government announced new initiatives to support victims of crime, including allowing victims to apply for financial assistance to attend the national parole board hearings of the offenders who had harmed them.

I think it is fair to say that members of the House, as a whole, though I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, have long been concerned about victims and understand and appreciate the importance of ensuring that as much as possible is done to take into consideration the rights of victims. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Liberals find ourselves supporting Bill C-32. As I have indicated, the bill would continue to build upon other government initiatives in a very positive fashion.

The Liberal Party critic pointed out at second reading that the bill was broken into two major areas. The first is the Canadian victims bill of rights, which would specify that victims of a crime would have a right to information about the criminal justice system. He used the example that the bill would provide access to some elements regarding the status of a particular investigation. It would include measures to protect the security and privacy of victims. As well, it would ensure that victims would be shielded from any form of intimidation. The bill would also provide victims, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the right to convey their views and have them considered, as well as to make victim impact statements and seek restitution orders.

I will pause here to say that I had an opportunity, in a much smaller capacity, to serve in a very rewarding way on a youth justice committee. We were moving in the direction on how we could get victims more involved in dispositions and we felt that in certain situations, it would be appropriate, if at all possible, to invite the participation of victims. An example might be where a young person vandalized or stolen from an individual or company and the circumstances around the meeting with the youth in question would allow the victim to be brought before the justice committee, along with the youth, to work together in coming up with a disposition.

We found a great sense of accomplishment when both the victims and the perpetrators felt, through that process, that the disposition was appropriate, particularly from the victims' perspective. They saw justice being applied first hand. I was not directly involved because I was the chair of the committee, but on a couple of occasions when I was directly involved, the victims felt wonderful about the opportunity to be engaged in the process and to be a part of it.

The bill specifies, when these types of rights apply, who can exercise them, how complaints are to be treated, and the interpretation of this act relative to other acts. It is important to note, even though those are the two major aspects of the legislation, that some other amendments are being proposed. When I had the opportunity to go through them, I thought allowing victims the right to seek publication bans was interesting and quite important for us to recognize. That change would ensure that harm of victims would be considered also in sentencing.

There is a number of reasons why we should be satisfied with the legislation as proposed. This is not to say that the government could not have done a better job in the drafting of the legislation prior to going to committee.

Some concerns were expressed, and I will point out the three that have been provided to me.

One is that the bill provides for enhanced information sharing, but does not outline the responsibility for this in specific terms. This is an area we thought had fallen short during second reading debate.

I also note, through presentations that were made and feedback received, that it does not address the fact that most victims do not know they need to register with the Parole Board or Correctional Services Canada to receive information about the offenders who have harmed them.

The third point is that the bill would allow for certain victims to be informed of a plea bargain, but would not allow victims to have a say before a plea would be accepted.

These are some of the views that were expressed by the Victims Rights Ombudsman and others, both formally and informally, and raised with the Liberal Party, committee members and so forth.

We need to recognize that the victims' rights are of the utmost importance, but I want to conclude my remarks by making a general observation with regard to victims as a whole.

I believe that there is so much more the government could do to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. The government needs to start investing more time and energy into this.

Yesterday was wonderful. We were able to debate fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the chamber. If this disorder were identified at any earlier stage, it would go a long way in assisting some in avoiding the justice system.

There are some simple things that could be done. I get frustrated very quickly when I hear many different stories and concerns from Winnipeg North. I get frustrated in the sense that we have been unable to better provide for Canadians as a whole. However, for me specifically at this moment and for residents of Winnipeg North, we should try to come up with alternatives for our young people, in particular, that would take them away from gangs. I do not think the government does enough in that regard. What other alternatives through programming might we be able to provide?

I recognize there are different roles and responsibilities, depending on the level of government, but the national government has a strong role to play in the coordination, ensuring that the different stakeholders are brought together, that dialogue occurs, that there is a sense of best practices that occur in the many different jurisdictions and communities.

The current government has fallen short on this. The Prime Minister believes that the least involvement of government, the better it is for society as a whole. That approach can be best seen in a wide variety of actions, or lack of actions, by the Government of Canada, but in certain areas, it can even more so. A couple that come to mind right away are health care and justice.

When I was first elected in a by-election, one of the primary, if not most important, messages I wanted to convey to members of this privileged chamber was that people in our communities needed to feel safe. However, there are certain areas or pockets across the country where that sense of security in one's home is challenged at times.

If the government really wanted to make a difference, it could do so in a more tangible way. I will give a couple of examples of that. It is all about how we might be able to prevent future victims.

One of the things that really frustrated me was issues related to community policing. It was quite upsetting when we had community police offices in Winnipeg's north end being closed down. It did not matter whether it was the provincial or national government, and to a certain extent the municipal government, but no one seemed to stand and say that it was not the direction in which to should go.

We have had former chiefs of police in Winnipeg indicate very clearly that community policing works and can be effective. I know first hand just how effective it can be. When we collectively allowed community policing to be closed down, we really allowed for more victims in the future.

Through community policing, as an example, we will find that it is better able to work with young people and get a sense of where the problem areas are. In doing so, it is able to prevent crimes from taking place. I believe this would have made a difference.

I can recall when the current Prime Minister came up with a pot of money to be used to increase the number of police officers. I understand that money was given to the different provinces. However, in Manitoba, that money was just put aside. I do not know if it was ever used, but it was a commitment that came from Ottawa saying that it wanted to see more police out on the streets in our communities.

Well, that did not happen, even though Ottawa wanted allocated money for it. It was because there was no sense of co-operation from Ottawa and the province to ensure that in fact would happen. Instead, we saw a pot of money put to the side, and the province did not act on the initiative with the city of Winnipeg.

That was unfortunate. Whatever the arguments might have been, the bottom line was, who paid the cost?

The Prime Minister, on the one hand, said that the government would put more police on the streets, but, on the other hand, he was not successful at that because he did not work with the different stakeholders. At the time, it meant that the police officers he promised never materialized, at least not in a timely fashion. As a result, we might have lost the opportunity to have prevented some crimes from taking place. This is what it really boils down to. There needs to be more co-operation with the federal government and the different stakeholders to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

If I could send a message to the Prime Minister today, it would be that we need to take a more holistic approach in dealing with crime in our communities and provide the type of programming that will make a difference to prevent victims in the first place and to prevent crimes.

That is what I think we need to start getting tough on, the causes of crime.

I look forward to future budgets in which we will see this as more of a priority and in which there will be an allocation to prevent crime from taking place in the first place.

Bill C-32—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

The House resumed from June 6 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.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak in support of the bill. Our party has been very clear that we are in support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time speaking over the government House leader. If he could have the decency to quietly—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. All hon. members are happy to see the two House leaders speaking, but possibly they would like to take it outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we show respect to all members of this place, particularly given the nature of the bill before us, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

As I have mentioned, we fully support this bill, but we have raised a number of issues. The bill could be strengthened with some straightforward amendments. I note that a good number of the inadequacies that we have pointed out mirror those raised by the ombudsman, and I will reiterate those shortly.

I am pleased to say that in the courts in my province, and most likely courts across Canada, victims of crime and families of victims have been allowed in many instances to present victim statements both for sentencing purposes and during parole proceedings. It is very important that those most impacted by crime have an opportunity to be heard.

We fully support the principles of this legislation. These promised provisions have been a long time coming. It is good that the government has finally come forward with the bill. It is regrettable, however, that the government failed to include resources in the budget to enable people to participate constructively in these processes. That is one of the inadequacies clearly identified by the victims and the families of the victims and the ombudsman herself.

We support sending the bill to committee. We look forward to recommendations from many quarters as to how the bill could be strengthened to protect the rights of victims while participating in the criminal process.

The media covers bad cases in every jurisdiction. There is great sympathy for the families of victims of serious crimes. In my city there was the case of Dougald Miller, who was attacked and seriously injured and has been bedridden ever since. He is being tended to by his wonderful wife Lesley Miller, who has attended every court session and every parole hearing. Our heart goes out to her. At committee we hope that one of the recommendations will be for more resources to be provided to the families who are left to deal with the impacts of crime.

As I have mentioned, one of the most cogent presentations on this bill was made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. I would like to reiterate to the House what the ombudsman's comments have been on this bill.

She, as we have, commended the government for introducing the first ever victims bill of rights and for the consultative process that took place, but there continues to be debate about the bill's contents and some of its inadequacies. She said that Bill C-32 marks a significant cultural shift. She recommended that it be strengthened by adding additional provisions. I would like to outline some of those provisions to the House.

The federal ombudsman previously made 30 recommendations to the government to be included in the bill. Her commentary speaks to where she feels the government has and has not addressed those recommendations.

It is important for us to keep in mind that the ombudsman prepared her recommendations after direct consultation with many victims of crime. They are solidly based recommendations premised on the actual experiences and needs of the victims and their families.

The ombudsman also stated that she supports expanding the definition of “victim” to include those who experience property damage, but she is concerned that it excludes certain categories of persons who might be harmed. She suggested that could be revisited.

The ombudsman supports, as do we, victims of crime being recognized, but there is no way for them to exercise that right. While it is called a right, there is no recourse to exercize that right. Normally when rights are enacted, there is some kind of mechanism whereby those rights can be enforced, such as in the courts, at a tribunal, or some kind of formal complaint process where there is redress. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide that. A number of people have raised that issue. I think that will be discussed in committee. We are hopeful, as is the ombudsman, that those inadequacies will be addressed.

It also allows the victim, on request, to have access to the defender's bail or probation order. Suggestions have been made that this should not have to be a request, because many victims or their families may not be aware of these rights and opportunities, and that this information should simply be automatically provided.

Here is one issue that has been raised by one of my colleagues, our critic for public safety. Interestingly, simultaneous to the tabling of this bill, there was another bill tabled that dealt with victims' rights. It was victims' rights before the Parole Board, I understand. These two bills will come forward to two different committees simultaneously. One will go to the justice committee and one to the public safety committee. However, they do not seem to be particularly consistent. Therefore, it is recommended that this be considered during the review of Bill C-32.

One of the recommendations has been that in many cases with these crimes—and certainly I can speak to this because I was one of the founders of the sexual assault centre in Edmonton—victims may not feel comfortable attending proceedings and coming face to face with the accused. Therefore, the recommendation is that, in the review of the bill, perhaps we give consideration to video conferencing so that the victims could, potentially, just observe the proceedings, or they may even be willing to give testimony or statements, but not be physically present.

In addition, the ombudsman has commended the fact that judges will have to take victim safety and security into account at various stages of the criminal process including bail, plea bargaining, sentencing, protecting against production orders, testimonial aids and measures to protect witnesses. Indeed, it is good that victims of crime and their families who are impacted should have potential access to all of these proceedings. However, from my experience, the biggest barrier for impacted persons—whether it is a regulatory offence, or whether or not it is an important decision impacting a community, or whether or not it is an alleged crime—is that they do not have equal access to the resources to participate constructively. This has certainly been the problem in many environmental reviews, many environmental appeals, and is also the same problem with victims coming forward.

Regrettably, there are also few to no resources made available in many cases. For example, there may be a crime that occurs in Fort McMurray, Alberta, but the family of the victim may be based in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, it would be a huge expense for them to appear at a trial or a parole hearing and actually testify. They would have to pay the travel expenses. They may have to take time off work. They may have to get child care. There are two potential solutions here. One is to provide the funding so that they can genuinely intervene, or secondly, use video conferencing.

Therefore, I look forward to all parties taking a close look at this bill in committee. It is one thing to suggest that it is good that victims should be able to participate. It is another thing to actualize that right. That right is only actualized when they can constructively and realistically participate.

I look forward to questions from members on the bill. Again, I commend the government for coming forward, but we look forward to the government actually being open to amendments, and open to amendments coming from all quarters. I know that all parties look forward to witnesses coming forward and testifying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. The amount of work she put into it reflects really well on the amount of work she puts in her own riding. She is probably the best MP that riding has ever had.

As for the bill, she mentioned toward the end that there is a problem with financing. Once again, we are in a situation where the government is downloading onto the provinces the costs of these programs. There seems to be a real misunderstanding with the government when it comes to affording individuals rights without any ability to exercise them. It would seem it only cares for rich people, the bourgeois, who can afford rights. If one is less well off, how can one possibly be able to afford the rights that are being presented? Is this not just another example of the government ignoring the average Canadian and just making bills for people who are wealthy and probably already have sufficient access to the courts?

I am wondering how we can address the problem of the lack of funding.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, actually, that was one aspect I meant to mention but did not. My understanding is that this law would empower the courts to impose restitution orders. The problem is that in not all cases does a convicted person have the resources to compensate the victim or the family of the victim.

There are a lot of cost issues related to crime. One of them is direct compensation if one's property or person are harmed. The ombudsman has pointed out that the bill would also not accommodate people if there was damage to property in the course of a crime.

In addition to that, I note that the MP for Toronto—Danforth said that what we do not have is a fund to generally support the victims of crime who might suffer trauma. We talk a lot about support for mental health. There are a lot of needs associated with the victims of crime, and we look forward to finally seeing something in the budget to address this bigger issue. However, it should also be addressed in the bill to be a real right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions and I would like to put one of them to the member, who gave an excellent speech.

In Quebec, there is a law that helps victims of crime. Has the member noticed whether laws have been harmonized or the provinces have been consulted about harmonizing different laws in order to move in that direction?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I am afraid I cannot answer it, but it is obviously an important factor.

It will be important when the bill comes to committee that we hear testimony from the Attorneys General and the Solicitors General across the country, not simply from victims rights groups that are NGOs and are probably grossly underfunded. It will also be really important to know which of these provisions would duplicate what is already going on in the provincial courts. Do they conflict in any cases? Are there any cases where there could be dual funding for some of these initiatives?

It is an excellent factor that should be considered in the review of this bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives always say that they are tough on crime and that they stand up for people affected by crime. However, my colleague just said that the people targeted by this bill will not necessarily be aware of the recourse they have.

Will victims advocacy groups be required to give them that information? What does my colleague think the government could do to ensure that there is greater awareness of victims' rights and that the law is fully implemented?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I could briefly reference the ombudsman's report. She has very carefully laid out a number of recommendations that would embellish and strengthen this bill.

It is certainly important that if people are going to access rights, they have to be informed of their rights. There should be an obligation on the government in this bill to inform all victims of what their rights are under the bill, who is responsible, and what the process would be.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I would like to begin by saying that the NDP is going to support this bill so that it can be examined in committee. We should examine it clause by clause as carefully as possible. We are going to ask the witnesses called by the government, the NDP and the third party good questions, because that is important.

We have been waiting eight years for this bill. Finally, it is here and we have to be able to work with the government to make changes and amendments if necessary.

I am going to provide a bit of background. This is a promise that the Conservatives made eight years ago. When the Conservative government took office, it promised, at several press conferences, that it would introduce a bill to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights. It happened this year. Until September 2013, Justice Canada held in-person and online consultations and finally Bill C-32 was introduced.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime actively participated in these consultations and provided a list of nine recommendations, most of which the government took into account.

My speech will focus on our concerns and what aspects of the bill we should examine together in committee.

The office made the following recommendations for a bill of rights: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limit opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or re-offend.

At first glance, the Canadian victims bill of rights takes into account most of these recommendations. However, there are a few that I am concerned about, and that I believe weaken this bill. As I mentioned a number of times, I hope that we will be able to work together as good parliamentarians should. The victims of our country are already fragile enough and we must give them all the help we can. That is how we will make progress.

The problem with this bill is that it does not provide for any financial assistance. We have heard that no one knows just how familiar victims will be with their rights. My colleague also talked about that. We do not know whether victims will be aware of what assistance they can request. We have to wonder whether support will fall to community groups.

I have an interesting statistic that shows that, right now, community groups provide the bulk of assistance to victims. The work is often done by volunteers. Groups that provide services to victims usually have employees, but they also have volunteers who provide assistance to victims. In 2011-12, 72% of victim service providers relied on volunteers.

I love volunteering and I think it is important, but I am not sure whether victims of crime should be dealing with volunteers. Should they not have access to someone with training in that field? It is not always easy to work with crime victims. They are dealing with a lot of feelings, emotions and an incredible amount of stress. It would be good for the bill of rights to provide for some funding to organizations that provide assistance to crime victims.

I have another concern about the money being allocated. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.

A victims bill of rights should, first and foremost, provide financial assistance. Costs borne by victims could be associated with transportation, communication or support, for example, when they need help getting to a particular location. A first step would be to help cover the costs associated with the consequences of being the victim of a crime.

Furthermore, according to the 2009 General Social Survey, 7.4 million Canadians reported being a victim of a criminal incident in the preceding 12 months. Since this bill affects one-quarter of Canadians, we must listen to them. I am sure that that the topic of costs came up during the consultations that were held.

According to that same survey, 47% of women over the age of 15 who said that they had been sexually assaulted by their spouse or a partner in the preceding 12 months said that they did not report the assault to police. It was sometimes out of shame, out of fear of retribution or out of fear that no one would believe them or that they would be blamed for what had happened. If nearly half of women who are victims of assault do not feel they can report it to police, out of shame or for other reasons, perhaps it is because we need to provide services to those women.

If women are ashamed to report that they are victims of a crime, we need to ask ourselves what can be done. The victims bill of rights will help victims who go to the police and take legal action, but we need to make sure that we have something to help the men, women and children who are afraid to go to the police. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any provisions to address that problem.

We are calling on the government to send this bill to committee. We want victims to have access to the support and services they need. That is of the utmost importance to us. That is how we can best address victims' needs. We acknowledge that, for many victims, being able to participate in sentencing and parole hearings is progress. However, as I said, there are elements in the bill that could be strengthened.

To conclude, I would like to quote Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime. On April 3, he said:

It’s a good bill, as far as it goes. 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 added:

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.

These days, it is all about keeping people informed. Without financial backing, it will be difficult to make sure that victims are well informed. The bill of rights should include provisions to ensure that victims get the support and help they need. The government says it is tough on crime, but when 50% of female victims of crime do not report the crime to the police, we have to ask ourselves some questions. We have to convince these women that there will be progress and that the police will take them seriously and be with them every step of the way as they deal with their very difficult situations.

I would like to reiterate that I will be proud to support this bill, but I hope that my Conservative colleagues will be able to work with us to improve the final version of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. Clearly, she knows what she is talking about. This goes to show how knowledgeable she is about issues that affect her community. She is doing extraordinary work in her riding.

Our party will definitely support this bill at second reading because it deserves to go to committee for further discussion. The bill does have some flaws that we need to talk about.

The Conservatives have been promising us this bill for years, but have not introduced it until now. They keep campaigning on empty promises and never come through with something we can read. They try to convince Canadians to support bills without telling them exactly what is in those bills. We are glad that they have finally put things down in black and white in this case.

Even though we have it in black and white now, it is still a mirage. The government introduced a bill that is supposed to help victims, but it is not giving them the means to use the tools that will be available to them. Moreover, as my colleague pointed out, because none of this will be advertised, victims will not even know what tools are available to them.

The tools will be in place, but unfortunately no one will know it. Furthermore, the victims will have a hard time using those tools.

What does my colleague think of the lack of funding in this bill?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he was here when we were talking about this bill and that he is also very interested in moving it forward.

I would like to read an excerpt from a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on April 3 that supports what my colleague is saying. Although this association supports this bill, it feels that “certain conditions must be met if this bill of rights is going to have real influence and not just make empty promises”.

That is kind of what my colleague was saying. When the government proposes a charter like the Canadian victims bill of rights, it has a responsibility to ensure that victims will be given all the psychological and financial support they need to move forward in the justice system.

It is important to give the justice system leverage, but the victims have to be at the heart of that approach and that is not the case at the moment. By providing victims with financial support, we would be putting them at the heart of these initiatives.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightfully noted that there is a general lack of funding. Community groups do very good work and are very generous, but their resources are limited. There is going to be a big problem.

Speaking of resources, this will take police training or legal training. Will the provinces or municipalities have to cover these costs through their police forces? The bill does not seem to provide funding for training, but I would think that funding is required.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

Police training is another expense that is passed onto the provinces by the federal government. In the time that I have been here, this seems to have become a vicious circle, or a bad habit. For example, criminal penalties continue to increase, but the provinces are not given the money to provide proper services to prisoners. The government says that this bill will help victims but, once again, it is not giving money to the provinces so that they can provide appropriate assistance.

I am certain that the police system acts in good faith and tries to help victims and to support them as they navigate the judicial system. That said, the government must provide the funding and the means to do just that. It was very important to include some money to that end in the bill.

However, I am sure that my Conservative colleagues who are carefully listening to us will accept some of our amendments in committee. I hope that I can convince them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-32, a bill on establishing a victims bill of rights for Canadians.

As New Democrats, we are certainly interested in the issues of the bill going forward. We are particularly interested in a number of provisions, including the widening of the definition of “victim” and the creation of a complaints mechanism for victims to file a complaint to a federal or provincial agency if they feel their rights under the charter had been denied.

I was looking at that particular provision this week when the survivors of St. Anne's Residential School were once again in the Ontario provincial court over the Conservative government's obstruction of a provincial court order calling on the federal government to release thousands of pages of police testimony regarding the crimes that were committed against the children at St. Anne's. When we talk about victims, I think it is important we say that, under the current government, there are two kinds of victims in this country, and unfortunately for first nations victims, their rights continue to be undermined.

Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, a legal agreement was put in place because Canada was found to be the defendant in thousands of cases of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against first nations residential school children.

Under the residential schools agreement, the independent assessment process was established. It was supposed to be non-adversarial to allow the victims of these horrific crimes to tell their story and be compensated. However, as the people of St. Anne's found out, this process was anything but non-adversarial. I will certainly be looking at Bill C-32 in terms of the complaints mechanism that needs to be in place for victims.

Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the Government of Canada's representatives from the Department of Justice played two roles. One role was to be the lawyer for the defendant, which was Canada, and so they were there to defend Canada's interests. However, they were also there to create the evidence narrative and provide the court hearings with all the evidence that the claimants needed. They told the claimants that they did not need to bring their lawyers. They just needed come and tell their stories. The evidence would be there, and they would look at it.

However, when the people from St. Anne's went into the hearings, they found that the federal government had prepared a false evidence narrative. The narrative was essentially a lie that was being presented at a legal hearing.

The narrative stated that there was no known documentation of sexual abuse at the Fort Albany Indian Residential School. The victims who came forward to tell their stories were being challenged day after day by Department of Justice lawyers who said that there was no evidence to back up their cases. Now, what the federal government did not tell the survivors, nor the adjudication process, was that it was sitting on thousands of pages of police testimony of the horrific crimes that were committed at St. Anne's.

In fact, in a 2003 affidavit, the federal government obtained this information from the Ontario Provincial Police, which identified 180 perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse, including the actual torture of children at St. Anne's, from 154 different plaintiffs. It also collected over 860 witness statements that verified the crimes.

Many of these criminal acts were not prosecuted in the Ontario court because many of the perpetrators had disappeared, could not be tracked down, or were dead. However, a number of criminal convictions did come forward. One of those criminal convictions is against Anna Wesley. Therefore, the federal government was aware of these horrific crimes and had the evidence.

In the 2003 affidavit by the Department of Justice to obtain this evidence, it told the Ontario provincial court at the time that it would be unfair for the defendant if its representation did not have access to this information. However, what was unfair for the defendant was considered perfectly fair for the survivors, the victims, who went in without this evidence.

Then, in the 2003 court ruling, the evidence was transferred to the federal government. The court said that future plaintiffs should also have access to the evidence. However, that did not happen.

The government lied to the survivors of St. Anne's and it lied to the independent assessment process. In 2012, as the process was going on with claimant after claimant being challenged over the fact that they had been put in homemade electric chairs for the amusement of the staff or forced to eat their vomit when they were sick, the federal government was saying that it had no evidence to back this up. However, the victims' lawyers found out that the government had this evidence and challenged it, but then the federal government said that it did not have to produce it.

The very federal legal institution that was there to protect the victims would define the independent assessment process. In July 2013, I wrote to the Indian Affairs minister and asked how it could be that the government would have produced a false evidence narrative and suppressed evidence in a legal hearing.

He wrote to me:

Canada is, of course, aware of the Ontario Provincial Police investigations regarding the St. Anne's...Residential School and resulting...trials.

But then he said that they had no legal obligation to seek out the documents. He did not say they were sitting on the documents, that they had the documents. He then said the evidence was not admissible.

This is what he said:

The statements made to the Ontario Provincial Police in the course of their investigation...cannot in Canada's view, be used as evidence in the Independent Assessment Process....only oral testimony of a witness is considered evidence.

That is not true. That is another falsehood. The terms of the IAP state, “Relevant findings in previous criminal or civil trials...may be accepted without further proof”.

He stated then that corroborative evidence does “not need to be submitted to corroborate the oral testimony of claimants”. This is one of the key elements because the independent assessment process actually states:

...the standard of proof is the standard used by the civil courts for matters of like seriousness. Although this means that as the alleged acts become more serious, adjudicators may require more cogent evidence before being satisfied that the Claimant has met their burden of proof....

The survivors who went into that process were lied to. They were told, “you don't need to produce evidence, just come and tell your story”, when it actually said if people are making serious allegations of criminal acts against children, they have to prove it. They sat, with all the access to the evidence, and told the survivors that they were making things up and that they had no evidence to back it up.

On January 14, 2014, this was heard at the Ontario Superior Court. Justice Perell stated that Canada had a legal duty to “search for, collect and provide a report” on the crimes that were committed against these children, and that “Canada's failure to produce OPP documents about St. Anne's compromised the IAP and denied the Claimants access to justice”.

This week, these same survivors were in court again because in spite of a provincial Superior Court ruling, they went back into the hearings and said they are not producing the evidence. The evidence on Anna Wesley and the crimes that she committed against children and the corroborating evidence that was used to convict her, they will not turn that evidence over. They said this to people whose only crimes were that they were first nation children.

The officials told the Ontario Superior Court they could not explain why they had produced a false evidence narrative. They did not know. It was maybe an accident, but that is not true. On July 26, 2013, after I wrote to the Indian Affairs minister, they began an internal rewrite of the narrative and it is called Amendments to St. Anne's Indian Residential School in response to the Member for Timmins—James Bay.

Think of that for a moment. The top legal system in this country, which is there to protect the interests of the law and the citizens of Canada, only started to create a clear evidence narrative after it was outed. Otherwise, it would have continued with the misrepresentation and falsehoods.

Edmund Metatawabin was in court again this week. Edmund is the spokesperson for the survivors. He has to fly down from Fort Albany on his own dime. He has been trying for years and years to get the government to work with him. Instead, all he has found is abuse. He wrote to the justice minister and said, “My god! We were just children, undergoing torture, abuse....the federal government was conspicuously absent and negligent to give us solace and protection” and “nothing has changed” in 2014.

I want to end by saying the government spends about $106 million a year in Indian Affairs fighting the rights of first nations people. That is almost double what it spends going after tax cheats or criminals. I would like to quote Doug Cuthand in the StarPhoenix. He said:

The federal government has adopted an expensive, two-pronged legal strategy....it conducts a scorched earth legal strategy that drags out cases and starves First Nations organizations of funds.... Sitting down for honest negotiations is simply not a part of the government's strategy.

The Conservatives made an apology to Canadians and they undermined that apology. They see only two kinds of victims and first nation victims are never part of their narrative.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a truly impassioned speech. It revealed a lot that I think Canadians do not want to hear, because I am sure they could not believe our government is capable of this kind of lawyering.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that the time might have come for some of kind of task force on the ethics and professional responsibility of the federal government's lawyers.

I am thinking about the residential schools case that we just heard described. I am thinking about the role of government lawyers in the Afghan detainee situation before the Military Police Complaints Commission. I am thinking of the current Privacy Commissioner, who argued before the committee against torture at the UN, under the Liberal government, that people could be deported to a substantial risk of torture if they were serious criminals. I am thinking of the farce of the constitutional compliance review that supposedly goes on in the Department of Justice, which we now know does not. Lawyers should not simply be mouthpieces for unconstitutional and otherwise unethical government policy.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that it is high time for a task force to look into this situation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for my hon. colleague and I think his question on a task force is very important.

The lawyers for the Department of Justice went into those hearings and lied and produced evidence that was a lie and suppressed evidence. If that was in a normal criminal proceeding, people's licences would be taken away and the cases would be thrown out, but in the case of the independent assessment process, the position of the courts and apparently of the independent assessment process is “Oh, well; we got caught. Life carries on”.

As Edmund Metatawabin said, they were poisonous in their treatment of people whose only crime was that they were children, first nations children, who were taken away from their families.

Then they went back into the hearings and acted in defiance of an Ontario Superior Court ruling. They acted in defiance of the basic laws of this land, in terms of the obligation for disclosure and the obligation for the federal government to uphold the so-called honour of the crown by producing evidence that is not fraudulent, and they think that this can carry on.

I agree with my hon. colleague. Something must be done.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question, it is a comment.

I am completely disgusted by what I have just heard and by the hypocrisy of a government that, on the one hand, says it wants to protect victims with a bill and, on the other hand, does these types of things. The big brother of the MP next to me, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, died in one of those schools. His mother found out by chance several years later. The family had no idea of what had happened.

Therefore, it is appalling that one part of the population is being protected but that another large part is not. I am thinking of all the aboriginal people and the missing and murdered women for whom they do not even want to set up an inquiry. That is hypocritical.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians saw that historic moment of the apology and thought that things would change. We took our government at its word.

Then we think of the disappeared women. Shannon Alexander and Maisy Odjick, two young students with top marks, walked out of their home one day in Kitigan Zibi and were never seen again, and nobody ever seemed to go looking.

I saw the family, a year later, putting up posters. Is there supposed to be an inquiry? Hell, yes, there needs to be an inquiry, yet we saw the justice minister take all the supposed documents about these women, their lives and what happened, and throw them on the floor of the House of Commons. Then the Conservatives stand up and talk about victims. They stand and want their pictures taken with the so-called victims, but they would not stand outside on the House of Commons grounds when the mothers, the daughters, and the sisters stood out there.

It is a crime. It is a crime against the larger humanness of the government and the country when the Conservatives relegate a section of our population to worthlessness and say they do not count and that they can abuse them and take away their rights. They can go into a legal process in 2014, lie in court, and say, “We're the Government of Canada. We will lie if we want to”.

That is not acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak about the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I will begin by providing a brief summary of the bill. It codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution in the justice system. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to incorporate some of those rights.

Everyone here will agree that we need to protect victims of crime and that victims have rights. However, the government's attitude is rather hypocritical. A bill of rights is a good idea. However, we know what the Conservatives think about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example. Day after day, they continue to introduce bills that turn out to be unconstitutional. It is therefore all well and good to introduce a Canadian victims bill of rights, but no funding is being allocated for this bill of rights, no programs are being developed and no plan is being made to enforce these rights.

Yes, the government is recognizing that victims have rights. That is a good start. However, the government is going to once again ask the provinces to spend money and implement the appropriate mechanism to support federal policies. Once again, the government is going to take credit for a bill, but it is not going to allocate the necessary resources or implement the necessary measures; it is going to put that burden on the provinces.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives consulted with their provincial counterparts to ask them whether their justice systems could accommodate this type of measure. Obviously we know that there are problems with delays in the justice system. These delays are the most difficult thing for victims. For years and years, they are re-victimized whenever they have to appear in court and then are told that they will have to come back again later.

Reducing delays is a priority for victims. I can testify to that because I met with people who, unfortunately, had to wait for years to obtain justice. What is more, they did not even get the help they needed because the waiting lists are too long. There are not enough resources, and victims are left to fend for themselves.

Of course, victims have rights. I have met many victims, and that is obvious. I am sure that everyone agrees; however, there are some concerns. For example, as I said, the federal government held consultations and many recommendations were made. I will share some. For one, there was a recommendation for integrated, accessible, simple resources and services with minimum standards across the country. Unfortunately, the government did not follow that recommendation. Victims are also asking for equitable, respectful and individualized rights, a voice and standing in the justice system. There is a major problem here, because none of the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to uphold and apply those rights. Rights are being granted, but there is no funding, no program, no plan and no obligation. Nothing is being provided.

This is basically all smoke and mirrors. With all due respect for the Conservatives, they may have had good intentions in proposing that we adopt this bill; however, they are just using victims as political leverage. That much is clear. It is a political calculation. They used victims, as they always do.

Whether it is children or victims of cyberbullying, they are using victims to try and get their legislation passed and benefit politically. Anthony Moustacalis, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said that the majority of the measures in the bill are already being practised in courts of law. I will quote him:

Were it serious about aiding victims, the government could ensure that Criminal Injury Compensation Boards have sufficient funding to act as a genuine source of relief. It would also ensure that those victims who require counseling are able to obtain it.

That is the crux of the issue right there. It is all well and good to recognize rights, but ensuring they are respected is a whole other story.

Bill C-32 was introduced few months ago and is still at second reading. The government did not send it to committee to be studied. It consulted people, but we do not even know whether it consulted its provincial counterparts. It still has not sent the bill to committee, and we still have not heard from experts. Nothing has been done. This is the first time I have spoken to the bill we are discussing. If the government truly cared about the interests of victims, why did it not include legal obligations for people who work in the justice system in the bill?

What is the point of creating rights if they unfortunately become obsolete when they do not apply in certain cases? I have read this bill. The Conservatives will try to say that I have not read it, but I have read it many times. The rights are conditional. I do not have the bill here in front of me, but I could point out the clauses. The rights are conditional in some circumstances.

I understand that the government is trying to score as many political points as it can. This bill is nothing but a charade that recognizes victims' rights but does nothing to ensure that these rights—which are conditional, I must point out—are enforced.

I want to mention that even the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime said that the bill of rights does not cover everything that victims think it should. The bill of rights is certainly an important and historic change for victims, and I will give the government that. The bill of rights acknowledges the role that victims must play, and it attempts to address their needs for information, consideration and protection. However, the ombudsman said that she had examined the bill of rights carefully and noted that many of the recommendations had been incorporated, but not all of them.

If victims are so important to the Conservatives, then why not invest the necessary resources in the program? Why not try to improve access to justice? Why not try to give the justice system the resources it needs to eliminate waiting times? I will say it again: the key elements are resources and waiting times. The longer victims wait, the more likely they are to be revictimized. The Conservatives recognized their rights, and that is great, but will the government ensure that victims can exercise those rights within the justice system? It has to make it possible for them to do that, cut waiting times and give everyone in the justice system the resources to ensure that victims' rights are honoured and that justice is done.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how she feels about the fact that the Conservatives are standing up to say they are protecting victims, but when it comes to protecting aboriginal women, they are failing. When it comes to protecting military women, who are subject to five assaults a day in the armed forces, and when it comes to protecting women in the RCMP, they are failing dismally.

I would like her to comment on the fact that they failed dismally on the very issues where they could have taken action.

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

Mr. Speaker, to ask the question is to answer it.

My colleague was clear. As I said, the Conservatives are all about the smoke and mirrors. However, when the time comes to do the work and walk the talk, the Conservatives are not in the game. They are nowhere to be found.

I just want to point out that, since the start of this debate, not a single Conservative has participated by asking us questions or talking about victims' rights. That is proof of their double standard. They do photo ops and they pretend to care about victims, but since debate on this bill began, I have not seen a single Conservative stand up to speak for the rights of victims, aboriginal women and victims of bullying. They are not the ones standing up in the House.

I see my colleague rising to ask me a question. I am looking forward to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record, you will see that you already gave the floor to the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All hon. members know that there is a standard rotation in the chamber. I did not see the hon. parliamentary secretary on his feet for a question. There is no rule that once something has been said the Speaker does not have the right to retract it.

[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?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions among the parties. I am pleased to report that I believe you will find consent for the following motion:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 15, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:11 p.m.)