Justice Committee on Oct. 9th, 2014

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dechert. I know that you and many members of this committee took part in the consultation and in the formulation of the bill itself.

This was one of the glaring shortcomings, if I could put it that way: basic information for the victim was sometimes missing. It caused a profound sense of exaggerated harm, uncertainty, and anxiety, particularly when court dates were changed and no explanation was given, or, as I spoke of earlier, an offender may have been released into the community without proper notice.

In many cases I truly believe this is never done with any sense of malice or even out of error. There is sometimes a genuine disconnect; one department or one individual may think that somebody else has already informed the victim. We heard this often during the consultation: the police thought the crown had informed them, or the crown thought victims services had done so.

I believe this bill will clarify people's roles, bring about greater certainty of responsibility in the sharing of information, and to the greatest extent possible, provide victims with the firm understanding of the guarantee to the information they're entitled to. That information can now include such things as court orders of restitution; court orders of the conditions that attach to the offender upon release, for example, in a bail hearing; a picture, a recent photograph, a recent image, of the individuals if they had been incarcerated for some time; information, in some cases, where the victim is registered with corrections and conditional release, about how the offenders have responded to treatment or whether they have expressed remorse. These are sometimes things of great importance to the victims, to know how the offenders have responded or whether they have sought treatment, whether they have demonstrated an effort to rehabilitate themselves.

This bill sets out to the greatest extent possible what information should and must be available to the victims upon their request.

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

I believe this victims bill of rights will help to restore Canadians' faith in the criminal justice system, which I think is very important.

You mentioned the right to safety and security. That's very important. We hear that from victims, especially victims of assault, all the time.

Could you tell us a little about the right to safety and security measures that are in the bill, and in particular the right to access a recent picture of the offender before release?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I think, suffice it to say, there are few things that would be more important to a person than to be able to recognize or pick out the person who caused them harm. Where periods of time have elapsed or the individual may in fact have made deliberate efforts to change their appearance, there is, I think, a right that an individual should enjoy to be able to take whatever necessary steps to protect themselves. The very least is to be able to identify the offender.

As far as other steps are concerned, that knowledge of what those conditions of release may be, whether it be earlier in the process, during, for example, pretrial, pre-sentencing, or after release, the conditions that the individual has to adhere to, including stay-away orders and certain conditions that would apply directly to their residence, to their children, to their place of work, that type of information being relayed accurately and in a timely way to a victim is extremely important.

I might add, practically speaking, this does happen for the most part. Much of what we are entrenching in this bill is done regularly and routinely across the country. This is meant to bring together and consolidate a greater flow of information and a greater flow of confidence to victims and to those in the system and to the public at large, as you've just said.

I wouldn't want this to ever be construed as a damning criticism of those who are working hard in the system every day. This is all about ensuring that we're doing everything possible, and everything now through a federal bill, that will bring about greater compliance and greater protection for victims overall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree that it is difficult to be against Bill C-32, but some criticism has been expressed, particularly about the bill's enforceability.

There seem to be quite a number of good statements of principle. Some things already exist in some provinces, where there are already victims bills of rights. In 2003 the federal government was a party to a sort of bill of rights with its provincial and territorial partners.

The question people often ask me is the following. You must have been asked it often as well, and I would like to hear your answer.

How is the Canadian victims bill of rights provided for in Bill C-32 enforceable? This 60-clause bill includes four very important sections: the right to information, which you talked about, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution.

Which of these provisions are really enforceable, formal, firm? There are not many; that is what victims are telling me. They say that there is something missing. It is good to project a certain image, but something actually has to be done. There are not many definitive things in this bill.

People are worried about funding. My colleague talked about this earlier. How many programs that helped victims have been eliminated in recent years? I have met with first nations groups that submitted projects or programs to help victims in their communities, but they were all refused. People have a hard time believing that this will change things. They are a bit distrustful, and I can understand why.

How do you react to that? How will this change things when many provinces already take this approach and they will have to enforce the law?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Ms. Boivin.

You are right. There are similar bills in every province and territory.

This bill, however, goes further. This bill, for the first time in federal law, puts in place a system that is meant to enhance and protect victims' rights in a way that truly places victims' rights on a level that is consistent and fundamental with all other federal legislation within our criminal justice context.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

How will you enforce it? How will you make sure that it's applied uniformly in Quebec, Ontario, Newfoundland, and so on and so forth, when you're not in charge of the administration of justice, and when the courts already have problems with access to justice and so on?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The immediate enforcement and the mechanisms by which that will be achieved will happen over time. This won't be like flicking a switch; it will require some adaptation.

I would suggest that it will put in place a greater linkage between those other complaint mechanisms and the federal victims ombudsman office, which is a relatively new insertion into our criminal justice system, since 2006-07. That office will allow for oversight, and I suggest that over time it will develop a working relationship with those other mechanisms, those other complaint processes, at the provincial and territorial levels.

To come back to your question about funding, there is also increased funding from the federal level into things such as the aboriginal justice system and victim advocacy organizations.

I would suggest, Madame Boivin, if you have not had the opportunity, to please visit one of these child advocacy centres. This is perhaps one of the most innovative insertions of victims' rights that I've seen in my lifetime, as far as getting young people the type of help and support they need at the very front end of the system. It reduces victimization for them at that tender years stage.

I would suggest that there is—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I do wish we could export that program and that way of doing things to many others. To this day, from your own department, it shows that it's still pretty much 80% of the total cost.

Victims themselves have to cover these costs, which are significant.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I find myself in agreement with you. I think there is very important change happening through those victim advocacy centres for children, which can be imported into the adult system. These improvements are happening. Obviously, it does always require resources.

The best part of this, and what I'm pleased to see, and I think you would agree, is the incredible dedication of the people who are devoting their time and effort to child victims. That is what is making the difference. It is because of the tremendous professionalism, lessons learned over many hard years for victims, that we are seeing changes in the counselling, the programming, the early intervention, and the lessening of trauma, particularly for children. Those mechanisms were in place but weren't always being uniformly used. There are testimonial aids, for example, something as simple as allowing a child to take their pet to a police interview or a court appearance, so it lessens their anxiety and their negative experience.

Those important steps forward are being made, and I think they will be translated across many other victims services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and those answers.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I'll centre my questions around restitution. If I may, Minister, I'll give you the four questions I have, and then I'll let you carry on.

First, can you tell us what restitution is? There are a lot of people who probably don't understand all of the types of restitution that can be involved. Why does the victims bill of rights include a right to access restitution?

Second, why is restitution important for victims?

Third, why are these changes important within the bill?

Fourth, if restitution is made in favour of the victim, what mechanisms are in place for non-compliance?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilks. Those are really important questions.

Restitution, simply put, is part of the sentencing order to allow victims to be repaid or put back in a place to the greatest extent possible where they would have been had the crime not occurred. Restitution is an effort to cover losses, whether they be financial or property losses, that have been experienced. Where this becomes difficult, and some would say impossible, is in trying to restore any psychological or physical harm experienced by a victim. That's where counselling and deferring medical costs is part of a restitution order that can be made by the court. Losses must be calculated for a judge to make an accurate restitution order, and they must be directly attributable to the crime. That, in a nutshell, is restitution.

As far as why it is important, it's part of the healing. It's part of the sense of true justice that victims be given acknowledgement of and restitution for their loss. It's a very important principle within the justice system. We heard a lot during the consultation from individuals who felt that offenders didn't truly appreciate the impact the offences had on them. Restitution is a form of rehabilitation as well, I would suggest. The offender is giving back and trying to put the individual back in the place they would have been had they not been harmed.

Victims often talked about the out-of-pocket expenses throughout the process: they were required to commute back and forth to the courtroom; they had missed work; they had to make child care arrangements. They were out of pocket. It was costing them further. It was as if the crime continued to be committed. Restitution is a very important part that we felt necessary to ensconce in the bill and to bring about true effect for the victim and changes that would help at least blunt the impact of the crime, in terms of the financial and sometimes psychological and physical impact that victims experience.

Why is it important that we do this? Why were these changes necessarily included in this bill? It's already part of the Criminal Code. It's our hope that this will bring about greater enforcement. What are the mechanisms to do so? This will empower courts, we believe, to follow through, to make necessary adjustments in some cases. I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb in suggesting that some provinces should look at their victim fine surcharges, look at alternative measures, programs that can be put in place that will give victims a greater sense of satisfaction, so there are efforts to see true compensation and restitution. Also, of course, civil remedies can be put in place that will allow for greater compliance with these restitution orders.

That's a long answer to four specific questions, but we felt that restitution is a very important part of a victim's right throughout the entire process and we think this will give it greater teeth.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madame Péclet.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you as well, Minister.

Today's discussion is extremely interesting, and I think it is necessary.

In the current justice system, the biggest obstacle that victims come up against in their search for justice is delays. I am not making this up. There was a report from the Canadian Bar Association and a report on access to justice from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Many organization have also looked at the issue of access to justice.

We have heard of many cases where proceedings were stopped because of unreasonable delays. The Supreme Court is going to look at the definition of “reasonable delay”. The justice system is under so much pressure right now that the Supreme Court has to look at what a reasonable delay is.

Bill C-32 is very long and gives victims many rights. There is a great deal of pressure on justice system stakeholders. What will happen? Everyone agrees that there is a serious shortage of resources. Delays are unreasonable and access to justice has become completely ridiculous.

I understand that the government wants to give victims a very important role. That is quite legitimate, and victims have that right, but what will they do when they have to wait years before they get justice and they may not even have access to a lawyer? They may make more money, but not enough.

You know something about the problems that exist. How will you enforce this legislation? My colleague also asked you how you would ensure that each province has the resources it needs to enforce these rights. Right now, all the stakeholders in the justice system are saying that they do not have the money or the resources to do so.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It's a very good question in terms of the implementation. I'll come back to the fact that, as I said earlier to Madam Bennett, we do have funding attached to the bill for implementation and for ensuring greater awareness, in particular for victims but also at all levels: provincial, territorial, and non-governmental organizations.

As for the question about this contributing to further delays, or backlog, or exacerbating the issue of access to justice, I can assure you that we carefully balanced all efforts, and all that you see entrenched in this bill, with that in mind as a backdrop to every calibration we were making to insert or perhaps assert victims' rights.

We were always mindful that anything that was going to cause further delays or restrict a person's access to justice, or perhaps more appropriately, a fair outcome, was always present in our thinking, because it is counterintuitive to what we hope to achieve with this bill that it would actually cause delay. Delay, it goes without saying, is one of those old maxims: delay is the deadliest form of denial. That's what victims had often complained about: that from the initial reporting of the crime to an outcome, whether they were satisfied or not, it was this prolonged, torturous process.

For things such as consultation with the victim on a decision that a crown attorney has to make, or a police officer communicating that, it's my hope that this is actually going to accelerate the thought process throughout to communicate these things to a victim in a timely way. It's going to bring about, I believe, a greater sense of obligation on the part of everyone in the system to consult with that victim early and often.

It's important to understand, I say for emphasis, that victims were not asking for a veto. There was a report. I sat where you're sitting as a member of the opposition when these discussions were happening years ago. There was a report produced by a predecessor committee, called “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. It underscored that victims were not saying, “Look, we want to be able to stand up in court and state our case in addition to what the prosecutor says”, or “We want our own counsel”. Some may advocate for that, but the vast of majority of victims are simply saying, “We want to know that our voice matters, that we've been heard, and that we are being given a meaningful right and access to justice throughout the process”.

I don't think that necessarily means slowing things down. I think it actually will help streamline in some cases. I think there is a tremendous commitment at the provincial and territorial levels, which are at the front end of the delivery of many of these services, to see that it happens. If it requires more resources, we're prepared to do that, as long as they're prepared to say, “Here's what it actually costs and here's the bill.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for those questions.

Our final questioner for the minister this afternoon is from the Conservative Party.

Monsieur Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Welcome, Minister. It's certainly a pleasure to have you here.

Minister, I can attest to the efficacy of the child advocacy centres and the wonderful work they do. I have the good fortune of having one in my riding. I just can't believe what they're doing for our youth, for our children. The whole legal system and the justice system, from police officers up, are so impressed with the impact it's having on our children. It's really nice to see. Having said that, I would encourage your department to promote in any way you can the expansion of these centres right across the country. It's so meaningful to our children.

On this victims bill of rights, it just happened that on Monday morning before I came to Ottawa I had the occasion to meet four constituents in my office. Believe it or not, two of them had been victims of crime, two out of four; it just happened that way. However, in regard to the ramifications of being victims in their particular cases—and both of them are adult men—it's just devastating to see what being the victims of these two crimes did to these people, so I can't encourage you to continue this more than that.

As for my question, maybe you could expand on the right of participation and tell us a little more about the specific changes that might be brought about by the victims bill of rights.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

First, Mr. Lauzon, I'm familiar with the child advocacy centre in your area in Cornwall, and it's one of the best, as I've said to you previously. We now have 20 operating in the country or in the process of being fully operational. It has been, in my view, again for emphasis, one of the most important innovations that we've seen in decades in the criminal justice system.

It's important to keep in mind, as I'm sure members of this committee are aware, that this is one area where crime rates are not falling. Child sexual abuse and offences against children are actually on the rise in Canada, so the need for these child advocacy centres and the need for further efforts and legislation in that regard cannot be overstated.

As far as participation goes, this bill is very much about requiring, as I said earlier, all actors within the system, including judges, to recognize the important role of victims and the right of victims to have not only the information but the ability to access services like victim services and child advocacy centres, and the ability to enhance their participation through important appearances on sentencing with victim impact statements.

I remember practising law when, much like Mr. Dechert said earlier, victims were treated like a regular witness. They were to give their testimony and go home. Now, through the introduction of victim impact statements, through their participation, and their greater support through the wonderful work that's done by victims services across the country, their participation is more meaningful, more impactful, and I think more satisfactory to them at the end, if you can say that about having to go through the system through no fault of your own.

Adding acknowledgement to the harm that has been done to them and having greater affirmation of their importance in the system is all part of what this bill is aimed to accomplish. I mentioned something that should never been seen as trivial: to be able to bring to court a photograph of your loved one and to be able to express personally how this crime impacted you and those around you is significant. Courts and our entire justice system have to recognize and embrace that change.

That's what this bill I hope will accomplish. It will entrench that type of culture shift towards victims, embracing and putting them very much front and centre when it comes to their rights. I really do believe that we have, through a very non-partisan and inclusive process, moved the criminal justice system a long way.

If I might, Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge Carole and Pam, as you did at the outset. These two women have done extraordinary work in the last number of years to bring this bill to fruition. It couldn't have happened without both of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's good to know, Minister, because they'll be on the hot seat in the next hour.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I know. That's why I'm saying to go easy on them.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

They'll be happy that you set them up like that.

That is the end of our time with the minister.

Thank you, everyone, for your questions.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us for that hour. Just so you know, we've set aside the next six meetings, as a minimum, to deal with this bill. The witness lists are in from all the parties and the clerk is working very hard in making sure that we get everybody here. Hopefully over the next month or so this committee will be dealing with that item. With that, thank you.

We'll suspend for about two minutes while we switch over our panels. Thank you very much.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Chair.