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.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, ladies, for your presentations and your willingness to participate in this extremely important study.

I'd like to speak to Monique St. Germain initially. My initial thought, Ms. St. Germain, is that your commentary alone with respect to the proliferation of child exploitation matters in Canada could easily form its own study. It's multi-faceted. It's multi-layered. I'm coming at my questions for you as a former justice participant who prosecuted these cases for the better part of two decades. I share your frustrations and concerns with respect to the inadequacies that the current system has to ensure that we deal with the under-reporting issues and that we deal with the supports that are currently lacking for all child victims across this country.

I listened very carefully to your recommendations. One comment was that child rights, in your view, are not being fulfilled by the current drafting of the Victims Bill of Rights. Could you expand upon that for me, please? I'll give you as much time as you need.

[Kat Owens, Project Director, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Kat Owens, and I am a project director at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today from Tkaronto, or Toronto, which is within the lands protected by the Dish With One Spoon wampum belt covenant.

LEAF is in solidarity with indigenous communities, and we echo their calls for, among other things, the immediate implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, as well as the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. This government has urgent obligations to bring justice to missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit persons and their communities, and to ensure that not one more indigenous women, girl or two-spirit person becomes a victim to this crisis.

LEAF is a national charitable organization that works toward ensuring that the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans and non-binary people. It does this through litigation, law reform and public legal education.

LEAF is glad that this committee is not only studying the Victims Bill of Rights but is hearing about how victims or survivors of crime can be better supported generally. Given the nature of LEAF's work and expertise in advancing gender equality, I will focus on how to support survivors of gender-based violence, including sexual violence, of which women, girls, trans and non-binary people are disproportionately the targets.

As you know, gender-based violence takes a devastating toll on the lives of victims, survivors and their loved ones. It disproportionately impacts women who are Black, indigenous, queer, trans or disabled. We urge you, as parliamentarians, to hear from and listen to members of these communities and the organizations led by them as you do your work.

We need survivor-centred approaches to addressing and ending gender-based violence, and survivors must have agency and choice in every step of the process. Too often the criminal justice system is the site of further harm for those who look to engage with it. For many survivors, especially those who are Black, indigenous, trans or criminalized, it can simply be unsafe to come forward and engage with formal legal systems.

I have three non-exhaustive recommendations to provide to this committee on how to better support survivors of gender-based violence.

First, we need a fully funded, intersectional national action plan to end gender-based violence. Piecemeal changes to how systems deal with gender-based violence are insufficient to adequately address the problem. We need holistic solutions. We also need parliamentarians of all political stripes to ensure that this work moves forward in a timely way, that it is guided by expert organizations and those with lived experience, and that the plan is put into action.

Second, it is imperative to study, develop and implement survivor-centric alternatives that move beyond existing legal systems. Alternatives like restorative justice and transformative justice models broaden the possibilities for justice, accountability and healing. LEAF is ready to support this work through its alternative justice mechanisms project, which will look at legal barriers to these types of mechanisms for sexual violence and propose law reform measures to address these barriers.

Third, we need to make changes to our existing legal responses to make them more accessible to those survivors who choose to engage with legal systems. Free and independent legal advice and representation must be made available to survivors of gender-based violence. This is crucial for them to understand their options and their legal rights and how to navigate the justice system.

In the criminal context, we need to reform how publication bans are implemented and removed in sexual violence prosecutions, as well as how the criminal justice system deals with breaches of bans by survivors. Whether a publication ban is issued to protect a survivor's identity should be an informed choice made by that survivor. Should she no longer want the ban, there should be a simple process to remove it.

Finally, a survivor should never be prosecuted for breaching a ban put in place solely to protect her identity. I understand that Morrell Andrews will be appearing before you on Thursday, and I would encourage you to listen to her lived experience, leadership and expertise on this issue.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

[Monique St. Germain, General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this study.

My name is Monique St. Germain, and I am general counsel for the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is a global leader in combatting the proliferation of child sexual abuse material on the Internet. We are a national charity, and we have been providing programs and services to victims of crime for over 37 years.

For the last 20 years, we have operated Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line to report the online sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The tip line is a central part of the Government of Canada's national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. Our role through Cybertip is to triage reports to the appropriate police and child welfare agencies where necessary, raise awareness through education and provide support services to assist Canadian families and children directly. The tip line has never been busier, and my goal here today is to be a voice for the victims and families we help.

In 2015, our agency believed that the Victims Bill of Rights was a vital step towards a fairer system for victims. We still do, but since 2015, the extent of online child sexual exploitation has exploded. According to Statistics Canada, the overall rate of police-reported incidents of online sexual exploitation and abuse have increased from 50 incidents per 100,000 population in 2014 to 131 in 2020. These numbers signal that we have a tremendous problem on our hands, especially considering that the numbers would be the tip of the iceberg.

Child sexual abuse crimes are grossly under-reported. Many cases involve perpetrators who are a member of the child's immediate family or household or a person known to the victim's family, making the need for supports for both the child and the non-offending family members critical, yet many victim services programs do not cover services for the victim's family.

Perpetrators of online crime such as luring or sextortion may be committed by anyone, anywhere and on any platform. There are jurisdictional and other complications that make investigations difficult, leaving many victims without justice. Today, reports of sextortion are through the roof. Multiple policing agencies as well as Cybertip.ca have been issuing public alerts to try to warn parents and their children of the highly organized and ruthless nature of these crimes.

If you don't work in this space, you don't know how bad it can get. Our agency has become connected with families of children who have died by suicide after being the victim of sextortion. We've worked with survivors of child sexual abuse material who have essentially become secret public figures to those in the offending community. Their images are widely distributed, creating an online and ongoing cycle of abuse and an endless stream of offenders. Survivors responding to our international survivors survey told us that these crimes have a significant lifelong impact on them.

The power of their stories led us to create Project Arachnid, an innovative global tool that can detect where this material is being made publicly available online and issue takedown notices. So far, over six million images and videos of child sexual exploitation have been removed from the Internet following a Project Arachnid notice. These images and videos were detected across more than 1,000 electronic service providers spanning nearly 100 countries. The problem is immense.

I will close with a few recommendations. First, as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada agreed to “take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse”. Online crime victims need ongoing safety planning, therapy and financial support. Their non-offending caregivers need the same things. These services and supports must be consistent across provinces.

Then there's restitution. Adding it as a specific right seemed like it would help; however, as an organization that closely monitors case law on all online child sexual exploitation offences, we can tell you unequivocally that restitution is not being ordered or even considered in most cases.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] is found in the collection of a subsequent offender. This means that victims of child sexual abuse material are rarely recognized as victims, so their rights under the Victims Bill of Rights are not being fulfilled.

In closing, we know that there are families out there doing their own investigations to unmask and protect themselves from an anonymous online perpetrator. Victims are self-policing to find their own content online to request its removal, and non-offending caregivers are struggling to hold it all together while being told by systems that are supposed to help them that they are not victims. It is not right, and it is not sustainable.

We urge the government to play a leadership role in better supporting victims of crime, not just through the criminal justice process but beyond.

[Aline Vlasceanu, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Aline Vlasceanu, pronouns she/her/elle, and I am the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

Every year more than two million Canadians report criminal incidents to the police, almost a quarter of which are violent. The CRCVC comes into contact with thousands of them every single day of every single year and has done so for almost 29 years.

The year 2020 marked the five-year anniversary since Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act, came into force. In 2019 the Department of Justice's review of Canada's criminal justice system acknowledged that victims often feel revictimized under the current system and argue that major changes are needed to adequately support the rights of victims in Canada.

The CRCVC agrees that major changes must be made to the act as it currently falls short of delivering the rights and protections that it promised. The act was set out to provide victims of crime with four statutory rights, which are information, participation, protection and restitution throughout the criminal justice continuum. Since the act came into effect, the CRCVC has witnessed its shortcomings first-hand and how they have negatively affected victims of crime in Canada. Many of these shortcomings can be attributed to the following issues: sporadic and inconsistent implementation of the act, limited training for criminal justice officials, and no public education effort to inform citizens of their rights under the act.

The above-mentioned shortcomings and much more were also published in the 2020 “Progress Report: The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights” by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. In this report, the office clearly illustrates that the objectives set out in the act have not been met. This year, CRCVC agrees with this conclusion made by the OFOVC.

When the legislation was first passed in 2015 to create the CVBR, there was also a requirement that a committee of Parliament be designated or established to review the CVBR five years after it was enacted. Seven years later, the review has not taken place.

Criminal victimization is frightening and confusing. The effects can be debilitating and demoralizing and leave victims confused, fearful and frustrated, often exposing them to long-term issues to overcome. Added to these impacts is the burden imposed by the complexity of navigating the criminal justice system. The adversarial justice system relegates victims to roles of observers or witnesses in proceedings between the state and the accused.

CRCVC works daily with victims who are often retraumatized by a system that should be protecting them. The Canadian criminal justice system fails to adequately and automatically inform them of their rights and the relevant criminal justice procedures. Some of the most common complaints the CRCVC has encountered include learning about hearings and trials after they've taken place, and learning about their right to submit a victim's statement after the deadline for filing has passed. Another common complaint is being unaware of their right to information about a federally incarcerated offender and unknowingly coming into contact with that person when they are eventually released back into the community.

While the CRCVC assists in a number of ways, a large part of our services involve helping individuals who are navigating the shortcomings of the CVBR. For example, the CRCVC helps registered victims of crime navigate post-trial agencies such as Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada in their search for information and participation in the hearings of their offenders. The CRCVC also helps victims who have their rights violated file a complaint, and it supports those who have not had their violations addressed correctly.

These services are directly related to the shortcomings of the act, as victims do not have real tangible remedies available to them when their rights under the act are violated.

Simply put, moving forward, we must hold officials and the system accountable for ensuring that victims' rights are delivered to them in a practical way. As outlined in the OFOVC's progress report, there are a few recommendations to address this lack of accountability. Specifically, these are the introduction of an automatic provision of information about victims' rights and remedies; designating a list of officials who have direct responsibilities to victims of crime within the criminal justice system; and naming the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime as a single authority with jurisdiction to review complaints by victims of crime in relation to how they were treated by a federal department, agency or body.

In agreement, CRCVC also recommends guaranteeing support services and assistance for victims, collecting national consistent data aligned with rights enumerated in the act, and assisting victims with the collection of court-ordered restitutions for the losses they have suffered.

Furthermore, it's important to note that OFOVC was created as an independent resource for victims of crime in 2011 to ensure that the federal government meets its responsibilities for victims of crime. While the responsibilities of the OFOVC sound promising on paper, it is difficult to follow through with these responsibilities given that there is no current federal ombudsman for victims of crime. The position has been vacant since the end of September. This is an affront to all victims of crime throughout Canada who rely on the OFOVC as an independent resource.

As the committee responsible for reviewing the government's obligation to victims of crime, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and I are calling upon you to use your voice to advocate on behalf of victims of crime in Canada who have had their voices stifled.

Thank you.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

My understanding comes from testimony in June of 2021. The then-federal ombudsman said that:

Critically, what we hear from victims.... The largest gap in the bill in its current form is that there's no ability to enforce the rights within the act.

Can you suggest what can or should be done to ensure that the rights outlined in Bill C-32 are enforced, while continuing to respect the rights of the accused, of course, and of convicted offenders?

[Stéphanie Bouchard, Senior Legal Counsel and Director, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on Justice Canada's measures that support the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Former Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, came into force in 2015. It gives victims of crime statutory rights to information, protection and participation and to seek restitution at the federal level. The 2015 amendments included related law reforms on testimonial aids, victim impact statements and restitution, and introduced a new community impact statement provision.

As required by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, Justice Canada has established a complaint process to address any alleged breaches of victims' rights, and prepares annual reports on this process.

The development of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act was informed by significant input from the provinces, territories and broad public engagement, reflecting the shared responsibility for the criminal justice system. As the committee knows, the federal government is responsible for the development of criminal law and procedure, much of which is set out in the Criminal Code. Provincial and territorial governments are principally responsible for the administration of justice, which includes enforcing and prosecuting offences and providing victims services.

Justice Canada supports work on victims issues through several key initiatives. The department leads the federal victims strategy, which seeks to improve the justice system for victims through funding, law reform and policy initiatives. Since 2015 almost $78 million in federal funding through the victims fund has been invested in provinces and territories to assist them with implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and victim-related legislation, and to develop or enhance victims services. For example, funding has been used to support restitution recovery programs, testimonial aids for adult and child victims and witnesses, training on victims' rights, public legal education materials, and building victims services capacity and accessibility.

Justice Canada is also supporting innovative victims service models, such as the family information liaison units. These are culturally grounded and trauma-informed teams that work with family members of missing and murdered indigenous women. Justice Canada funding is also supporting expanded access to independent legal advice for victims and survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

Criminal Code reforms since 2015 have furthered the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bills of Rights. A few examples include that in 2018, former Bill C-51 amended the Criminal Code to clarify and strengthen Canada’s sexual assault regime, including building on former Bill C-32 by providing a complainant with the right to counsel during a rape-shield provision. In 2019 former Bill C-75 enhanced measures to better protect against and reflect the serious nature of intimate partner violence, and strengthened the victim surcharge provisions.

Most recently, following the adoption of former Bill C-3 in 2021, in order to be eligible for appointment to a provincial superior court, candidates must agree to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.

Justice Canada continues to support broad research to identify trends as well as take note of how victims' rights are exercised in the criminal justice system and the impacts of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. This research informs our ongoing work.

Information-sharing and awareness-raising play a key role in justice system transformation. To that end, the department continues to support various public legal education opportunities and collaboration with partners. In addition to publishing fact sheets on victims' rights and designing new tools for police and other professionals, Justice Canada hosts the national Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, as well as webinars and knowledge exchanges. The victims week has been a huge success. It brings experts together to discuss ways to make our collective commitments to victims more effective.

Lastly, I would note that the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007. It is at arm’s length from the federal government. The ombudsman’s mandate is focused on areas of federal jurisdiction. There have been three ombudspersons appointed to date. A new GIC appointment process is currently under way.

In conclusion, I would say that Justice Canada continues to prioritize work to support victims of crime. Implementing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is an ongoing process, requiring actions from all levels of government working within their areas of responsibility in relation to victims' issues and victims' rights, and significant collaboration takes place across federal–provincial–territorial networks to ensure that their measures are coordinated.

We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Carole Morency]

I will try to briefly respond.

Since the development of what became the CVBR in Bill C-32, Justice Canada has worked closely with the Department of National Defence in developing what has become the “civilian VBR”. They weren't in a position to bring forward similar amendments on their part because it's a much more complicated regime. As you know, Bill C-77 is still to come into force.

We do continue to work with them on various Criminal Code reforms, including on victim support and, over the last few years, in supporting particular interests on how to support victims of sexual assault through the process.

On a go-forward basis, I think the government has indicated that it will work to address that. We, in the Department of Justice, will do our best to support the government, moving forward, in addressing the issues.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. This is an important topic.

I'd like to begin by noting that section 2.1 of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, called for a parliamentary review to be conducted five years after the bill coming into force. As we all know, July 2015 was six years ago. That comprehensive review needs to take place separate from our study. [Technical difficulty—Editor] victims and their families is something we should all care deeply about. I believe we do, so I'm glad we are at least taking the time to study it here.

This is for the Department of Justice officials, for Ms. Morency or Ms. Bouchard. Under subsection 515(13) of the Criminal Code, added through Bill C-32 with respect to bail hearings, justices are now required to include in the record a statement that the justice “considered the safety and security of every victim of the offence”.

Could you speak to the impact this new requirement has had on the safety of victims over the past six years?

That's for either one of you.

[James Bezan]

Commodore, you mentioned that Bill C-77—and we'll have you at committee tomorrow as we start the study on it—will address some of the shortfalls we currently have in the National Defence Act. I'm glad that we are going to be addressing victims' rights to reflect what we already have in the Victims Bill of Rights brought in by our previous Conservative government.

Can you speak to how this will streamline the process in the summary hearings and change the way summary convictions are carried out versus the court martial system?

Opposition Motion—Justice

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share a quote from the hon. Irwin Cotler. At the time, he was the member for Mount Royal, previous minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. He was responding to the current minister's speech at second reading of Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights. He said:

For victims and their families, navigating the path of justice...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.

National Defence Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I find the comments coming from the Liberals somewhat interesting and rich about needing to ram this bill through all of a sudden. Here we are on October 1, and now it is time to ram this bill through when it took them three years to get to this point. When it was first introduced on May 10, we went through two months of sitting in May and June, had midnight sittings through most of the month of June, but yet the government did not see fit to bring it forward for debate then. Instead, the first day of debate for this bill was September 21, a Friday sitting, where just about two hours of debate can occur. Here we are on just our second day on the bill, and all of a sudden the Liberals are crying that we should be immediately ramming this through, before members have a chance to debate it.

In our former Conservative government, we placed victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. We thought it was important the victim of a crime be granted the right and privilege to participate in the criminal justice system. We did this in a number of different ways, but most importantly, through Bill C-32, which created the Victims Bill of Rights. We did that because we felt it was important the victim have a voice and the opportunity to fully participate in our criminal justice system.

It has been disappointing to hear from these Liberals the last couple of weeks, who would rather place criminals ahead of victims on so many different issues. In the past two weeks alone, we saw these Liberals defend granting veterans benefits to convicted murderer Chris Garnier, a convicted murderer who did not spend a single day in the military. He never once donned our nation's uniform, never once participated in Canada's Armed Forces, yet these Liberals stood in this very place and defended the right of that convicted murderer to receive veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, that he, by his own admission, had because of the brutal murder he committed. These Liberals are defending his right to receive treatment paid for by veterans rather than that which is available through our Correctional Service of Canada.

Tomorrow we will be debating a motion in this very place brought forward by our leader, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, about the tragic case of Tori Stafford's murderer being transferred from a prison with bars and razor wire to a healing lodge, where the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada admitted there are often children present. We heard the Liberals defending this once again today in question period, defending the murderer of an eight-year-old girl who was brutally murdered. The Liberals are defending the transfer of her killer from a prison to a healing lodge. It is wrong. Tomorrow, we will see where the Liberals truly stand on victims when they are called to account to stand in this place and defend that decision.

This follows a series of moves by these Liberals to place a greater emphasis on the criminal rather than the victim. Bill C-75 would actually reduce a sentence for a number of what we on this side consider serious crimes.

This would include participating in the activity of a terrorist group, infanticide, a couple of impaired driving offences causing bodily harm, abducting a person under the age of 14, forced marriage, advocating genocide, extortion by libel, arson for fraudulent purposes, and possession of property obtained by crime. They also want sentences reduced for participation in the activities of a criminal organization. With all of the challenges we are facing, these Liberals want to reduce sentence for those participating in gang activities. I know this is wrong and Canadians know it is wrong.

When the former Conservative government introduced the Victims Bill of Rights in 2014, our then justice minister saw fit to make this bill of rights a quasi-constitutional document, a document so important that it would take precedence over many other federal statutes. At the time, our minister of justice, the hon. Peter Mackay, stated on April 9, 2014:

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.

What does this bill do? It effectively reintroduces Bill C-71 from the previous Parliament, which our Conservative government introduced, and applies the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the military justice system. In particular, it provides for four key rights for victims: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

Many Canadians, whether they serve in the Canadian forces or not, often find the criminal justice system intimidating and confusing, and find it challenging to get information about the case being made about the crime perpetrated against them. The right to information is about their right to have information in the general sense of how the system works, and also specifically regarding their case so they know about its progress. It is also to know information about the investigation, and the prosecution and sentencing of the person who perpetrated the act against them.

Whether it comes to the criminal justice system or the military justice system, the second right is the right to protection. This is to ensure that victim safety and security is protected. Whether that is by having their identity protected from public disclosure or using other measures that would allow for their protection, we believe this is exceptionally important.

I do see that my time is running short, so I will not have a full opportunity to talk about the right to participation and right to restitution. However, I will say that those of us on the Conservative benches will always stand for the victims of crime. We will defend the victims of crime and ensure that they have a place in both our criminal justice and military justice systems so that their voices are heard. We will stand with victims.

[Alexandra Laberge, Co-leader, Comité de travail Féminisme, corps, sexualité, image, genre et violences, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Allow me to introduce myself briefly. I am Alexandra Laberge and I am an elementary and high school teacher. I am a volunteer member and activist with the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Quebec women's federation or FFQ, and co-chair of the working committee on feminism, the body, sexuality, image, gender, and violence.

I would like to use the privilege of officially representing the FFQ here today, and the voices of the women and girls of Quebec—and the voices of the women and girls of Canada as well, I hope—to remind the government that firearms issues are women's issues.

Women's struggle against firearms is historical, global, and legitimate since firearms are primarily owned by men who victimize and make women vulnerable by how they use them. Our struggle dates back long before 2012, when the previous government passed Bill C-19.

In the years since then, we have suffered another affront as a result of Bill C-42, in 2015. Women mobilized and the public statements, briefs and actions, as well as the heartfelt cries of women who have suffered as a result of these bills have finally been heard by a Liberal government that has promised reform to the women of this country. We are confident that this government has heard us since we represent half of Canada's population and are the targets of the bullets fired predominantly by men.

Unfortunately, we do not think Bill C-71 will adequately protect Canadian women and girls. In our opinion, the government could do better than this bill to improve the safety of women and girls in Canada. We would like to take this time today to remind you of what these women and girls have concluded and what has been shown by various authorities and women's groups. We would like to give you recommendations that are the result of these women's reflections, which we consider legitimate and feasible, in order to help preserve the safety of women and girls in Canada.

As a volunteer, and at the same time as my work as a teacher, I have studied more than a dozen briefs, reports, and written demands by women, yet I have looked only at what has been produced since 2012, and in French only. Supported by reliable sources and recognized bodies such as Statistics Canada and the RCMP, these women have done an outstanding job in order to be recognized once again in the government's decisions on firearms. I hope that these documents, which have been reported in the media and are readily accessible, have been read and studied, but I have not been able to look at everything that has been done elsewhere in Canada. We could rely on the data from Statistics Canada, which are quite telling, or other government platforms, but women always have to work extra hard to assert their rights and, nowadays, their safety. That is why the Quebec women's federation insists on honouring this work by raising the main points that these women have taken the time to identify and that we officially support.

All the written briefs point out that firearms are a women's issue. Let us not forget that firearms are primarily owned by men and that, although they make up the majority of victims of homicide statistically speaking, women should not suffer as a result of firearms or laws that make it easier for men to harm them.

The Coalition for Gun Control, reports, for instance, that although men are more frequently the victims of homicide, women are about three times more likely to be killed by their spouse.

Let us recall the discussion in 2015 surrounding Bill C-32. More than 30 women's groups in Canada spoke out about the impact of Bill C-42 on the safety of women. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadian women were killed by a bullet that was fired by legally owned shotguns or rifles, the same weapons that some people do not consider to be the cause of gun violence.

Guns are fifth among the 18 main causes of death in domestic homicides.

Investigations of family violence, such as in the case of the children of Kasonde and Arlene May and the Vernon massacre, have shown the weaknesses of the old act. Changes to the current act have been recommended. Risk detection needs to be improved for gun licence applicants by using detailed questionnaires and requiring two references from the applicant, along with notification of the spouse. A gun registry should also be created because important information is missing from police databases.

Fifty per cent of domestic homicides end with the killer committing suicide, which shows that the key to protecting women and children is to thoroughly review gun licences and gun licence renewals. Eighty per cent of gun deaths in Canada are suicides which, for the most part, are committed by a rifle or hunting rifle that can be easily obtained.

In rural communities in western Canada, in particular, people are less in favour of gun control and the percentage of people with firearms licences is higher.

Women and children are especially vulnerable when there is a gun in the home. In Ontario, 55% of killers in cases of domestic violence had access to a firearm. The recent Small Arms Survey of 2013 studied the relationship between guns and domestic violence. It states among other things that while men account for the majority of victims and of those committing homicide using guns, the number of women killed, injured, and intimidated by guns in situations of spousal violence is significantly higher. Appendix D of the RCMP report states that some of those deaths could be prevented through stricter laws that prohibit persons found guilty of spousal violence from carrying a gun. Further, the report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2011” shows that stricter firearms laws have protected women and children.

We agreed to appear today because we think the current government, through its actions and decisions, which support feminist policies, will finally consider the safety of women a top priority. We have chosen to take on this responsibility because what we are proposing will be analyzed by competent people and adopted for the safety of women in Canada.

We have two recommendations, which we are making jointly with “PolySeSouvient”.

The first is to prohibit anyone subject to a protection order from carrying a gun.

The second is to clearly prohibit anyone found guilty of spousal violence, rape or other sex crime from carrying a gun.

These recommendations would not eliminate gun violence against women, but our objective is more realistic. We are calling on the government to impose stricter regulations in order to reduce the number of women killed.

Carrying a gun is not a right; it is a privilege. It is logical and legitimate that people who are found guilty of a crime, especially crimes against women, should lose that privilege.

We want the government to take a clear stance on these two issues and show its support for the safety of women in Canada by adopting these two realistic and necessary recommendations.

In closing, we would like to mention the forgotten women and girls who suffer because of the right to carry a weapon, people who are not mentioned often enough and are never given the opportunity to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, indigenous women and girls have been forgotten for too long and suffer the consequences of guns more than non-indigenous members of both sexes combined.

The report entitled “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile” shows that older women are also the victims of gun violence and are more likely than older men to be killed by a family member.

Finally, we must not forget transgender women, for whom no statistics are available as of yet.

In conclusion, I will draw a brief parallel with what is happening to women in the United States. Since the start of the year, there have been 22 school killings in the U.S. In Canada, we have also had our share of tragedies at educational institutions in which women were targeted in particular. Teachers, who are still part of a traditionally and primarily female profession, are offering an interesting perspective on women and men beyond the intimate sphere, the family, the public sphere or the workplace. Women are not safe because of the laws that allow people to own guns.

Act Respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-343, an act to establish the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts and to amend certain Acts.

The NDP has proudly and always has been a strong advocate for victims' rights. I therefore support the bill because it seeks to better support those victims on the road to healing. By ensuring the independence and the long-term existence of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, the bill places a priority on the rights of the victims. No matter what government is in power, it is victims who will be recognized.

The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, an act which was created in 2007, is an institution under the auspices of the ministry of justice. The important and declared purpose of this institution is to help victims of crime and their families. Its mandate has evolved ever since, notably with the introduction of the Conservative government's Victims Bill of Rights, Bill C-32, in 2014.

At that time, we supported the victims bill of rights bill, which sought to ease the burden for the victims by granting them this set of rights, although some experts argued that it would not meet all the needs of victims. As was made clear by a significant number of witnesses during the 2014 committee study, victims had to be put first. Much remains to be done in that regard.

This is all the more important given the current legal context and the implications of the R. v. Jordan decision. Timelines on unreasonable delays for trials have been imposed, up to 18 months in the lower provincial courts and up to 30 months in superior federal courts.

In the wake of this decision, many charges related to violent crimes have been stayed. This is notable in the case of a man accused of killing his wife, a father accused of child abuse, and a sexual assault of a toddler in a daycare centre. This brings to light the abysmal lack of resources in our justice system, and its terrible consequences. It underlines the necessity of appointing more judges, of creating more courtrooms, and of providing the system with adequate resources. If not, many other charges, like those already mentioned, will be stayed due to unreasonable delays.

We must put ourselves in the victims' skin to understand how terrifying and disheartening it must be to learn that an offender escapes justice. The government must come to realize the additional emotional trauma and stress it can cause people victimized by crime, and the urgent need for those victims to have access to a legal system that allows justice to be done. The government must act accordingly. Victims must be confident that their government is there to help and support them in this difficult and often bewildering journey.

However, despite these pressing needs, the previous government and current government did not do their best to address the situation. Quite the contrary, they contributed to the deterioration of our justice system while they were in power and when they were in opposition.

Although the former Conservative government introduced strong criminal laws as well as the Victims Bill of Rights, it also slashed police budgets and undermined police resources. Moreover, the actual delays on trials are nothing new. This situation has been a reality of the system for decades. These deficiencies are the result of years and years of neglect and cuts to our judicial system.

The former Conservative government could have done something to prevent the present chaos when it was in power. Why did it not give the judicial system the resources that were needed? Why, instead, did that government cut resources drastically? I am, however, pleased that one of the members of that previous government has seen fit to at least partially redress that neglect by introducing Bill C-343.

For their part, the Liberals' justice agenda is equally insufficient. It is under the current Liberal government that charges for sexual assault and first degree murder are being stayed. What is the government doing to ensure that those accused of these crimes are brought to trial? The government has been very slow to address this situation. However, it must act now and deal with the crisis to ensure that no more charges are unfairly stayed or withdrawn. Quite simply, the government must adequately fund the justice system. This is a priority, or at least it should be.

Why the government feels it does not need to adequately resource our justice system is a mystery. Does it regard Canadians as the lumpenproletariat? Notably, it could make a real and important difference by appointing more judges and by providing sufficient resources to our courtrooms. Proper funding is essential. It is crucial if we are to have any chance of bringing hope to victims and bringing those accused of violent crimes to justice. It is the only appropriate response if we are to truly respect those who have suffered, their families, who have likewise suffered, and our communities. We need to bring them a sense of closure and a sense that the system has served them well.

In addition to providing proper resources to our justice system, everything must be done to ensure that victims are offered adequate support on the road to healing and recovery. Bill C-343 seeks to promote the better provision of help and services for crime victims. This, of course, is very much in keeping with the values of the NDP.

I am sure members are aware that since the federal ombudsman for victims of crime operates as a program under the Department of Justice, it is not necessarily independent. This is a problem. Freedom from political interference is exactly what the proponent of the bill presently before us wants to address. The intent is to strengthen the office of the ombudsman by upgrading this position from a program and making it equal to that of the correctional investigator.

For instance, the ombudsman is currently required to submit the annual reports to the Department of Justice rather than to Parliament. Therefore, no matter what is said, in the event the department does not agree with a recommendation or is concerned about a criticism from the ombudsman, it can remove it from the report. This goes against the fundamental goal of the institution. How can the ombudsman be the voice of the victims it serves if its recommendations are at risk of being removed?

To make absolutely sure that the ombudsman can effectively represent victims and their rights, the position has to be independent and accountable directly to Parliament. This is crucial to better protect the rights of victims and to prove to all victims that they matter. Therefore, I strongly recommend that Bill C-343 go to committee, where its effects can be examined and where there can be a discussion in regard to how to better strengthen the role of the ombudsman. However, this does not change the fact that the Liberal government must take immediate action to amend the current crisis.

We must always bear in mind that the road to healing after suffering a great trauma is very difficult. The experience of victims of crime can be very painful and arduous when they become caught up in the justice system. By testifying in court, and when sometimes having to challenge a ruling, they have to relive the terrible crimes they experienced. This is often complicated by added administrative barriers and difficulties, notably the problem of understanding the legal jargon and the necessity of filling out form after form. This is the reason it is critical to the healing process that the voices of those who have suffered be truly heard and that their rights be truly respected. We must ensure that their road to healing is as seamless as possible.

By passing bill C-343, we can show victims that we support them. This is something we, as parliamentarians, must take seriously. Every party must be committed to the well-being and healing of victims. Action must be taken now out of respect for those people. They need to know that their needs will always be addressed, that real and just action is possible, and finally, and most importantly, that victims will be treated fairly in Canada's justice system. I would hope that the latitude is given to the ombudsman to make that so.

Life Means Life Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of the session, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Mississauga—Erindale for the extraordinary privilege they have given me to represent them, since 2008, in this place. I hope to earn their trust again and return here in the fall. I look forward to seeing all of my colleagues here when I do.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-53, the life means life act. By eliminating parole eligibility for high treason and for the most heinous murders, the criminal law amendments in this bill would ensure that the worst offenders spend their entire lives in prison.

The reforms in Bill C-53 grew out of the commitment made by our government in last fall's Speech from the Throne to amend the sentencing laws to ensure that a life sentence means a sentence for life for the most dangerous criminals.

I predict that these proposals will be welcomed by the public as another important step by our government to protect Canadians from the most violent and incorrigible offenders. I also predict that they will be strongly welcomed by the families and loved ones of murder victims, who, under the laws that now stand, run the risk of being re-traumatized every time the offenders responsible for their losses apply for parole.

In that respect, I think of Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of one of Clifford Olson's victims, who, along with her family, had to go to parole hearings every two years, under the old faint hope clause regime, to hear Clifford Olson tell them why he should be released. They had to relive the trauma of losing their son every two years, time and time again.

In this respect, Bill C-53 would complement other victim-oriented measures sponsored by our government, such as Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act. A key purpose of both Bill C-53 and Bill C-32 is to prevent those who have already been victimized by criminals from being re-victimized by the criminal justice system.

As I mentioned, the reforms set out in Bill C-53 target high treason and certain forms of murder. Both offences are currently subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, with the right to apply for parole after a set period of time in custody.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

This private member's bill was introduced by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap on April 7, 2015. I support this bill because it will provide a higher level of protection to the families and loved ones of victims, in the sense that murderers will be prevented from applying for parole. That is why the short title of this bill is the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act.

I will come back to this aspect of BIll C-587, namely, that it puts the needs of families and loved ones of murder victims first. It will be especially important that I emphasize that point during my speech on this bill given that this House is also examining another bill that also aims to protect the families and loved ones of victims. I am referring of course to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, better known as the Canadian victims bill of rights. The measures outlined in that major piece of legislation will transform our criminal justice system by rebalancing the scales of justice in favour of victims' needs.

Bill C-587 is consistent with Bill C-32, and I suggest that we consider the proposed measures in light of those contained in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I am sure we all agree that these are very serious offences, morally and legally, and that they should be treated seriously.

The second important amendment is that Bill C-587 would authorize the sentencing judge to replace the minimum parole ineligibility period of 25 years with a longer period of up to 40 years, based on the character of the offender, the nature of the offences, the circumstances surrounding their commission and any other recommendation made by the jury.

In exercising this power, sentencing judges would use these criteria, which already exist in similar provisions in the Criminal Code, to ensure that this measure is applied to the most sadistic, hardened murderers who have already been convicted of offences in the kidnapping and sexual offence categories.

Murder is the most serious crime and it must be strongly condemned. This principle has been recognized by this country's highest courts. For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court, in Vaillancourt, pointed out the extreme stigma attached to murder, as a result of the moral blameworthiness of deliberately taking another person's life.

This moral blameworthiness justifies the harsh sentences imposed on murderers: life in prison without parole for up to 25 years in the case of first degree murder.