Laurie Hawn

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a good one.

Bill C-32 addresses a number of aspects of this whole picture of victims' rights and so on, but it addresses the judicial process, and that is what it is intended to do. It does not, and was never intended to, address some of the things that would fall out of that because this is not endless.

However, there are a number of things that would fall out of it. There are various mental health programs and services in the provinces. Most of them are delivered provincially, as that is where those authorities reside.

It is a legitimate question. It is a matter that should be addressed, but I do not think that it is part of Bill C-32.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

There were a lot of consultations, including in my own riding of Edmonton Centre. As we all know, the bill does propose significant changes to Canadian criminal law.

It is thanks to some great work of the tireless staff in the Department of Justice, people like Pam Arnott, working closely with the Minister of Justice, who have brought the bill to the House. Most important, the bill would create the Canadian victims bill of rights to enshrine enforceable rights of victims of crime in federal law for the first time.

These rights fall into four main areas.

The right to information would give victims the right to general information about the criminal justice system, available victim services and programs, as well as specific information about the progress of the case, including information related to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them.

The right to protection would give victims the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, have reasonable and necessary measures to protect them from intimidation and retaliation, and to request their identity to be protected from public disclosure.

The right to participation would give victims the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by criminal justice professionals and have them considered at various stages in the criminal justice process, and to present a victim impact statement.

The right to restitution would give victims the right to have the court consider making a restitution order for all offences for which there are easy to calculate financial losses.

In addition, the bill would amend other legislation, such as the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide greater specificity to those rights.

Bill C-32 is the most recent example of our government's commitment to improving the experiences of victims of crime. Because of the transformative nature of these reforms and the significant impact they will have on the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system, the Canadian victims bill of rights is a milestone in the quest for justice for victims of crime.

This government has long been aware of the need to do more for victims of crime. Indeed, it has been one of our top priorities. Since 2006, we have designated more than $140 million to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

We have seen the results of this investment in concrete terms, such as through the creation of more than 20 child advocacy centres across Canada that help children and their families navigate the justice system.

We have also undertaken a robust legislative agenda that has included many reforms benefiting victims of crime. These have included Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which reformed the victims surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code; Bill C-14, Not criminally Responsible Reform Act, which addressed the needs of victims accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder; and, most recent, Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, to address cyberbullying.

While we are proud of everything we have done for victims of crime, the victims bill of rights is truly a significant achievement. Ensuring the rights of victims at the federal level recognizes the difficulty that victims can experience as they participate in the criminal justice and corrections systems. It would provide concrete means to ensure that the needs of victims would be respected.

The rights enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights and the amendments to the other acts that are included in Bill C-32 would apply to all victims of crime.

However, some of the proposed provisions would have special significance for vulnerable victims, such as victims of sexual offences, and that is where I would like to focus my attention today.

Bill C-32 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code scheme that governs the production of third party records. To be clear, this scheme applies to documents of all kinds for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and which are being sought as evidence in criminal trials involving sexual offences. The proposed amendments are consistent with the rights of victims to privacy and security, which would be enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Four amendments are proposed to the third party records regime.

First, the amendments would ensure that all historical sexual offences would be included within the procedures governing the release of third party records by replacing the current list of historical sexual offences with a general description to ensure that all victims of sexual offences would be protected by this scheme.

Second, the period of time for which an accused must serve their application for the production of third party records would be doubled from 7 to 14 days.

Third, the court would be required to inform the complainant or witness of their right to be represented by independent legal counsel during the in camera process.

Finally, a court would be required to consider the right to personal security of a complainant or witness when determining whether to produce a record for inspection by the court or whether to produce the record to the accused. This would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence in this area.

Bill C-32 also includes a number of amendments that specifically address the needs of victims of sexual offences when they testify as witnesses in criminal proceedings. The benefits of testimonial aids, such as support persons, use of a screen that spares the witness from seeing the accused, or testimony outside the courtroom by closed-circuit television, are well documented.

Bill C-32 would make testimonial aids more readily available for adult vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, by providing the courts with greater discretion to determine whether to order their use. Currently such testimonial aids may be ordered for adults when a court determines that they are necessary for the witness to provide a full and candid account. Amendments proposed in Bill C-32 would allow a court to make such orders for adult witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, when they believe it would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account. The language is important here.

Additionally, a court would be required to consider the security and protection of the witness, and society's interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and witness protection in the criminal justice system, when deciding whether to order a testimonial aid.

The Criminal Code provision governing the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of a witness when the accused is self-represented would also be amended to benefit victims of sexual offences. The amendment would presumptively prohibit a self-represented accused from personally cross-examining a victim of sexual assault, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires it. This presumptive approach is currently the case with victims of sexual harassment, and recognizes that victims of certain crimes are more vulnerable while they participate in the criminal justice process.

A victim's right to privacy and protection under the Canadian victims bill of rights would also be supported by amendments to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code, which governs publication bans for adults. Currently a judge may order a publication ban for an adult victim or witness, if the order is deemed necessary for the proper administration of justice. Bill C-32 would allow a court to order a publication ban for adult victims and witnesses when it is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. Once again, the language is important.

When determining whether to order a publication ban, the court will consider factors, including whether the witness can suffer harm, rather than significant harm, as is currently required, if their identity were disclosed. These amendments would be particularly beneficial to victims of sexual offences, who are often more vulnerable due to the nature of the offence.

This bill has been thoroughly examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The standing committee held nine days of meetings and heard evidence on many critical aspects of the bill. It has also been the subject of comprehensive debate in the House of Commons. In fact, this bill has enjoyed the support of all parties, at all critical stages of parliamentary consideration. There has never been any question in anyone's mind on both sides of the House about the need to recognize victims of crime and the positive and long-reaching impacts that this bill will have on their experiences in the criminal justice system.

The time has come for this House to conclude our study and debate of this bill. I hope that all parties will work with us as we ensure that this landmark piece of legislation is passed as swiftly as possible. For too long, victims have voiced the concern that their perspectives have not been heard. This government has made a commitment to improve this situation, and has in fact made significant progress in improving rights and services to victims through many legislative and program initiatives.

Victims have waited a long time for this bill. Let us not make them wait any longer.

[Veterans Affairs, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec government confirmed that the Ste. Anne's veterans hospital transfer is a hundred per cent ready to go, and it will be transferred at the beginning of 2016.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on the status of this project?

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I applaud my colleague's enthusiasm and passion. I am equally amazed at her imagination. I was not aware that Bill C-51 was attacking fish, but I guess I have to read it more closely.

My colleague has read so much into this bill, it is truly hard to follow and truly hard to believe. As I said, I applaud her imagination. I want to talk about oversight, which she is rightly concerned about, because we should be concerned with any kind of measure like this that goes toward protecting Canadians—and the people who rely on the fish, by the way.

We talk about CSIS and what it can and cannot do; we talk about judicial oversight, which exists; and we talk about SIRC. Language is very important. It was said by a former solicitor general that SIRC does not provide oversight; it provides review. When SIRC reviews all the actions of CSIS, as it will, and comes across something that it feels has gone beyond the lines and reports that to the appropriate authorities, that now becomes oversight.

Would my hon. colleague agree, at least on that point? She says there is no oversight in this at all. Clearly, that is blatantly untrue. Would she give a little credit and say there is some oversight? Maybe there is not enough for her and maybe she does not trust the people providing the oversight, and that is fair ball, but would she at least agree that there is some attempt at oversight in this?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for the great job he is doing in that new portfolio and for the question.

It is a very relevant question. His background and mine have been in the military environment. Other colleagues have been in the police environment, where it is extremely important that people know who is coordinating, who is in charge. It does not mean that this person or that office is doing all the jobs. It means that there is one point of command.

Personally, I would relate to being the wing operations officer at 4 Wing Cold Lake. It was a large operation with many different facets. The command post ran the operation, and I ran the command post. There were people out there doing all the different jobs: military police, the flying operation, the security operation, the supply operation, and the armaments operation. All those operations were run by people we trusted, because they knew what they were doing, just like the RCMP trusts the security forces inside the House of Commons and the Senate to know what they are doing. However, there had to be someone at the point of authority to take in the reports, collate them, and say what was going well and where help was needed. There had to be someone there to coordinate and control that and to command that.

That is what this is about. It is about hard-earned experience from decades and decades of military operations, which, let us face it, in many ways is what we are talking about here. This is a paramilitary operation. Especially when they are using force or the force of arms at times, they had better have control over that. They had better know what is going on. There had better be one body in charge of coordinating that reporting to someone who has authority over them, just like the base commander had authority over me in Cold Lake. Someone is the base commander and someone is the Wings Ops O; the RCMP is the Wings Ops O.

The RCMP should be trusted to do the job. It is the one equipped to do it. It has the experience, training, capacity, and tools. Let the RCMP get on with it.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

That too.

There is no connection there at all. I really would appreciate a more relevant question.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have to laugh at that question a little bit.

I respect the question and the questioner, but to suggest that because we are supporting the RCMP because of its experience, long history, capability, connections, tools, and equipment, which clearly make it the best single body in this country to coordinate effective security here, and which does not mean that it would do it all, it is somehow demeaning security forces in another country is just plain silly.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise and contribute to this important debate on a motion put forward by my colleague, the Chief Government Whip.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks that began in a parking lot in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu on October 20, 2014, and that moved to the National War Memorial on October 22, 2014, and ended only a few minutes later with the dramatic death of a gunman at the hands of the RCMP, the parliamentary security forces, and the then sergeant-at-arms, I think it is fair to say that this motion was inevitable. The harrowing events of those days, which we all remember, brought a number of things to the attention of all parliamentarians.

First, it showed us the courage, professionalism, and capacity of the RCMP detachment on the Hill; the bravery of the House of Commons and Senate security services and the former sergeant-at-arms; as well as the professionalism and rapid response of the Ottawa Police Service. We all recognize the great job they did that day, and we are eternally grateful for their willingness to stand on guard every day for us here at the heart of our democracy.

On October 22, 2014, their years of training paid off. They advanced in the face of fire and the situation was brought to a safe conclusion. However, October 22, 2014 also brought into sharp relief some really concerning facts about security here on Parliament Hill.

For example, on October 22, 2014, there were four different jurisdictional police/security services. They were the House of Commons, the Senate, the RCMP, and the Ottawa Police Service. The possibility for wires to get crossed with this many points of accountability is high. When dealing with the security of the elected legislators of our nation, the hundreds who support us, and the thousands of citizens and visitors who come here to watch us work, those risks cannot continue.

Many Canadians would be rightly concerned about the fact that there are so many different jurisdictional security services with responsibilities for various parts of the Hill. Bureaucratic silos are an impediment to security, integration, and overall preparedness, which 9/11 showed to the world. On that terrible day, thousands of people died, including 24 Canadians. Our appreciation of the world of security and risk changed forever.

October was a far less catastrophic wake-up call than 9/11, but it was a wake-up call we cannot ignore.

In the aftermath of 9/11, with all of the resulting investigation and introspection, it became clear that all of the evidence had been there to take pre-emptive action, but that no one had put it together. No one had put it together because the various agencies were not sharing information the way they should have done. We cannot let that same type of silo mentality compromise the safety of Canadians, Canada, our visitors, or our institutions.

Although not directly related to this motion, Bill C-51 would go a long way to breaking down the silos that exist between the various agencies making up the security system of Canada. The passage and implementation of that bill would be essential to giving us the tools we need to plan and implement common sense, effective security measures in the parliamentary precinct.

It is imperative that security within the parliamentary precinct be integrated and enhanced. This leads to Motion No. 14, which we are debating today. Motion No. 14 calls on the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate to invite the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament while—and this part is important—respecting the privileges, immunities, and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary security staff.

When we say “respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses”, that means you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleague down the hall in the Senate. You have the authority. The RCMP would not be reporting to the government; it would be reporting to the House of Commons and the Senate through you and your counterpart.

This motion would advance the recent efforts by the House and Senate to integrate their forces, but it would not replace them. It is the next step. In the face of a rapidly changing and evolving threat environment, we need to ensure that these efforts continue to be carried out effectively and efficiently in the face of evolving threats.

Let me talk about those threats for a moment. CSIS tells us that it is keeping track of somewhere around 140 people of interest. We can be pretty certain that the actual number that we should be concerned about is much higher. That points to the need for Bill C-51 and the sharing of security information.

ISIS is actively recruiting in Canada and many other countries around the world. Some of that recruiting is targeted at individuals or vulnerable communities. Some of it is more general, seeding destructive, terrorist thoughts into regrettably receptive minds that might also be suffering from mental illness.

Some say that the acts in October, 2014 were not terrorism, but merely related to mental illness. Who of sound mind would carry out those kinds of actions, anyway? I suggest that this would be a misunderstanding of terrorism and the things that make terrorism work.

I am pretty sure that the two killers of our soldiers in October, 2014 were not members of ISIS per se, but they were certainly influenced by the fundamentalist ideology that ISIS spews.

Without knowing who they are individually, these are the kind of people ISIS counts on to be random hand grenades spread around the world just waiting for their pins to be pulled. They do not know when they are going to go off; they just know that they are.

This integrated approach being proposed is essential, and it is in line with the recommendations from the 2012 Auditor General's report that recommended unifying security forces on the Hill, “under a single point of command, making it possible to respond to situations more efficiently and effectively”. One chain of command, one point of accountability.

Of course, access to Parliament Hill must remain for Canadians and visitors, but it must be balanced with very real security concerns. Countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have similar approaches to security, and their experiences have shown that security forces can be integrated while still respecting the privileges of all parliamentarians.

This plan will do nothing to alter or negatively impact the existing immunities and parliamentary privileges of senators and members of Parliament, including the right of members to come and go unimpeded.

It does mean, however, that we as parliamentarians might be asked from time to time to show ID to security personnel, for example. That does not restrict access. It just confirms identification. I know that it is the job of our security forces to recognize this, and they do a very good job of it.

On my first encounter with security personnel on entering Centre Block under the Peace Tower as an MP in 2006, I was greeted by name and welcomed to Ottawa. I was impressed then and I have been impressed ever since. That does not mean that from time to time a member of that security force may not recognize someone and may ask for identification, which every one of us should have available all the time. That is just plain common sense.

This does not constitute a breach of privilege, as was recently alleged, and is not a reason for any member to spring into self-righteous indignation. All parliamentarians must face the reality that our security environment here in this place has changed, and we must adapt to it. That does not mean casting aside our ease of access, though it does mean being prepared to be asked for ID from time to time, even if one is a parliamentarian. That is just plain smart security.

When it comes to integrating parliamentary security, the RCMP is clearly the best equipped to provide operational leadership in terms of command, control, and coordination and to lead security on Parliament Hill. It does not mean that they would do it all. It means that they would lead it.

They have a national presence with access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence that is essential to meeting today's evolving threats. They have the experience and the tools to effectively implement and manage a complex security system. They have been doing that for a long time.

Importantly, these new security measures would have oversight from a parliamentary authority, contrary to what is being suggested by the opposition. Again, Mr. Speaker, this would come through you and through your counterpart down the hall.

One force in Parliament and another force outside it simply does not make sense. We must support full integration throughout the entire parliamentary precinct under the operational leadership of the RCMP.

To those who claim that this is in some way a demotion of existing House of Commons security personnel, let me address that very clearly. It is not. The existing parliamentary security personnel are valued and respected, as they should be. Their continued employment will be consistent with all existing collective bargaining agreements, to the question from my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Those who suggest otherwise are simply trying to play politics at a time when our focus should be on every part of our security apparatus working together to get the job done.

This is a measure that is long overdue after another tragic wake-up call of the kind that our allies have also experienced around the world, most recently in Australia, France, and Denmark.

To honour the memories of Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent, and the security personnel who put their lives on the line that day and every day, we must take action to improve our security on Parliament Hill. To do otherwise would be sticking our heads in the sand and would not be appropriate for a serious G7 country.

This change to security on Parliament Hill is overdue and will balance liberty and security at our national legislature. We owe that to the people who count on us. It is just plain common sense.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this place is all about process. I do not just mean Parliament, but Ottawa. It is all about process. That is important. There needs to be process, but there also need to be results and action, especially when something is critical and especially when Canadians are demanding something like their personal safety.

October 20 and October 22 were wake-up calls. They should have been wake-up calls for even the sleepiest of Canadians. It could have been so much worse on both of those days, especially on October 22, if the people involved had been better organized, better equipped, and so on. They were not, and we are thankful for that, but they were bad enough.

There is a whole bunch of other people out there who are probably better organized and better equipped, and the clock may be ticking. We do not know that. We know that there are at least 140 out there. If CSIS and others say that there are 140, we can bet that there are a whole lot more than that.

I would like to ask the minister about the urgency of this matter. In the American experience after 9/11, one of the biggest problems the Americans had was that there so many silos and disconnects between all of the different parts of the apparatus of the American security system. When they looked back on it, it was all there. Everything about 9/11 was there, but they just had not talked to each other. They just had not shared.

I know that the same situation exists among Canada's security services, whether it is CSIS, CSEC, the DND, or the CRA. Those disconnects exist.

I would like to ask the minister about the urgency and the timeliness that is required to connect those disconnects, because the clock is ticking.

[Petitions, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by dozens of Canadians.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to make several changes to the current drinking and driving laws in Canada, and to make changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, primarily in the area of increased fines for various levels of offence.