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.

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

I have one minute, so if I could, I'll just change gears quickly with regard to spousal competency and compellability rules.

Bill C-32 proposes amendments that would create a general rule of witness competency and compellability, whereby the common-law rule of spousal incompetence would be eliminated and spouses would be competent and compellable by the prosecution to testify against their spouses. However, spousal privilege under subsection 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act would remain, so a husband would continue to be uncompellable to disclose communications made by his wife during the marriage, and vice versa. Would these rules still apply to common-law spouses?

[Carole Morency]

I'll try to take the questions in order.

On the way that Bill C-32 is proposing amendments to permit some witnesses to testify through a pseudonym, right now that ability exists, but it's not codified. It's not in the Criminal Code. Some courts have made the decision, depending on the facts and circumstances, to allow a particular witness to do so.

I can give you an example. In the 2002 decision in Mousseau, there was a victim in a sexual assault case who was concerned.... There were a number of other victims. Apparently the accused was believed to be harassing some of the other complainants and because he knew their names was alleged to be engaging in those kinds of communications. This last victim complainant who was testifying in the proceedings did not wish to be exposed to the same kind of harassment communications, so in that case, the court determined that the witness could testify through a pseudonym. The jury didn't know how the victim was testifying.

Basically, in that case, the court is always going to have to consider the facts and circumstances, so the test that would be applied under the VBR would be the same as what the courts are doing in practice right now. They'll look at it in terms of the importance of the charter right of the defendant to be able to make a full answer in defence and the proper administration of justice principle of open court. The court can take a number of steps. It's going to be the court that will make the decision, and the court can take a decision based on a consideration of all of those factors and what measures could be taken that will secure or safeguard the accused's right to make full answer in defence.

Could the victim testify through a pseudonym and also through, for example, the use of a testimonial aid where the accused can still see the witness complainant? Basically, it's going to be the court in those circumstances that is going to take the decision on what measures are needed to enable that victim in that situation to testify through the use of a pseudonym and still preserve and protect the right of the accused to make full answer in defence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

From the Parole Board of Canada, Monsieur Clair is here. He's the executive director general.

I've asked, and there are actually no presentations. They're here to answer questions about Bill C-32, so we're going to go right to questions.

I'm assuming that from the New Democratic Party it's going to be Madam Boivin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll call this meeting back to order.

It's the second hour of the start of our review of Bill C-32.

For the second panel we have a number of witnesses.

We have witnesses from the Department of Justice, who were previously introduced.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ms. Thompson is here. She's the assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch. Also here is Mr. Churney, director of corrections policy. From the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Don Head, commissioner. He's the head commissioner.

[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.

[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?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Minister.

I note your remarks that Bill C-32 actually reflects much the input of the stakeholders that were consulted. I note that there was extensive consultation and that this outreach was very important in coming to the final provisions that have been proposed.

I also noted your remarks with regard to the effort made to respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. I wonder if you could elaborate on the extent of the consultations which were undertaken.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Colleagues,

I am pleased to appear before this committee today to talk about Bill C-32, which enacts the Canadian victims bill of rights and will entrench victims' rights in federal legislation.

I'm proud to say that this bill, the victims bill of rights act, has been a key priority for our government since 2006. I appreciate the support that has been received for this bill thus far at second reading from numerous groups of stakeholders, victims advocates, including members present, since the bill was tabled last April.

This bill reflects broad consultations and input received from over 500 stakeholders in person or online bringing forward reforms discussed at every federal-provincial-territorial forum, and best practices from international, provincial, and territorial legislation, and programs. There has been a tremendous amount of input. At its core, the victims bill of rights act complements existing measures for victims of crime while respecting constitutional divisions of power in the administration of justice and being very careful to avoid causing undue delay in the criminal justice process. That was an important consideration, I can assure you, which was raised often during our consultations.

I strongly believe that this bill strikes the appropriate balance between the rights of victims and the rights of the accused. Importantly, it extends rights for victims at every stage of the criminal justice process, from the beginning of the investigation to the consideration of the release of the offender on warrant expiry. It affords victims a true sense of inclusion, of respect and consideration, throughout the process. The proposed primacy clause stipulates that all federal legislation would be required, to the extent possible, to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Canadian victims bill of rights. Where there is a conflict between a federal law and the bill of rights, the provisions of this bill would prevail, with certain notable exceptions. Victims will benefit from general rules that will be entrenched, will be spelled out, will be cast in federal law for the first time.

We know that victims of crime often seek information about the criminal justice system and the role they play, about their case, about the decisions made by the justice professionals throughout the process. This bill creates a right to information. It brings amendments to the Criminal Code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide more information to victims on things such as bail and prohibition orders, plea arrangements, victim-offender mediation, and parole board decisions. This proposal builds on existing laws, policies, and best practices.

We know that victims are looking for greater protection in their interactions with the criminal justice system. Bill C-32 will build on the many existing measures in federal law to better serve victims.

Specifically, amendments to the statutory scheme governing the disclosure of third party records in sexual assaults proceedings, in the testimonial aid provisions, would require courts to consider the particular security needs of victims who are witnesses. Similarly, proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would allow the parole board to impose reasonable and necessary conditions on an offender serving a long-term supervision order, which would include a non-contact or geographical restriction if the victim presented to the board a statement about safety.

Studies on child victims have shown that publishing identifying information can exacerbate trauma, complicate recovery, and discourage children from reporting crimes to the police or impact on their cooperation with authorities. That's why the proposals relating to publication bans involving children and using pseudonyms are the logical next step in enhancing victim protection in our system.

The amendment on spousal immunity has sparked some interest. The proposed amendments would ensure that if a spouse has relevant evidence to give, the crown will not be able to call the spouse to testify. Bill C-32 would not, however, change the privilege regarding marital communication. A married person testifying at a trial may still refuse to disclose a communication made to them in the confidence of the spouse during their marriage.

We know that victims want to participate more in the criminal justice system. The right to participation set out in this bill recognizes that major concern.

Specifically, the measure to clarify and broaden the scope of the victim impact statement provisions in the Criminal Code would clarify that victims would be permitted to speak in their victim impact statement to the emotional, physical, and financial impacts of the offence. It could also include their taking a photograph with them, or using testimonial aids to present their statement to the court. These are compassionate measures that we think will aid in the ability of a person to give their evidence.

We know that victims are also concerned about the financial impact of a crime, which often places them in serious hardship. The amendments proposed would provide victims with the right to have courts consider restitution orders against the offender, as well as the right to enforce orders as civil judgments which could or would possibly avoid lengthy civil proceedings for the victim of crime.

We know as well, Mr. Chair, that victims were seeking enforceable and practical measures to address the harm and prevent similar harm to others.

I must pause for a moment to pay tribute to those very courageous individuals who took part in this process and helped with the presentation of this bill by sharing their experiences in the criminal justice system. For many it was a very painful experience to go back over what had happened to them, but I know that they did so with tremendous compassion in their hearts, in the hopes of preventing victimization in the future.

During the consultations, many victims advised that they did not want to see police or prosecutors impeded in the exercise of their authority, or punished. They simply wanted organizations to address problems up front and spare other victims and their families some of the unfortunate experiences they had undergone.

The proposed remedies approach would provide remedial action to victims more quickly than any external adjudicative process, and make federal departments and agencies proactive in addressing victims' needs. This remedial scheme provides a review mechanism with statutory powers and the operational expertise necessary to assess potential breaches of victims' rights, in the context of each department's or agency's operations, requiring that victims use existing oversight bodies with authority to oversee the operations of a department or agency. This is a cost-effective and timely approach, and it's consistent with the input that we received during consultations.

Many victims' rights advocates in Canada clearly supported creating enforceable rights for victims. In her initial report on Bill C-32, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime wrote that this significant step forward will help acknowledge and enshrine victims' role in the criminal justice system. That is very positive.

After talking about what this bill will do, allow me for a moment to touch on some of the elements that the bill will not address.

The bill doesn't propose to make victims a party to the criminal proceeding or give standing, nor does it give victims the right to receive legal aid automatically. These are areas we spent a great deal of time considering and reviewing. We believe we received significant feedback during the consultations on these specific suggestions. I might say many were concerned that it could lead to unintended negative consequences for victims, unnecessarily burden the justice system, and lead to significant costs and delays in criminal proceedings. For those reasons we have not proceeded in that direction.

The bill also does not give rise to a cause of action or claim in damages. Criminal justice officials noted during the consultations that imposing additional civil liability on officials responsible for implementing this bill would impact on the operations, cost, and functioning of the justice system. As similar clauses appear in provincial and territorial victims' rights legislation, other federal statutes, and related statutes in other countries, we are confident with the approach we've taken on this issue.

This bill will also not provide victims with the right to review or veto a crown decision to prosecute. Again, we've received tremendous input on this subject. Prosecutorial discretion is a constitutionally protected principle in our criminal justice system, and we are protecting it under clause 20 of this bill.

However, we have included amendments to the Criminal Code that would require the court to inquire if the crown had informed the victim of any plea arrangements for serious personal injuries offences, which we believe strikes the right balance and the right approach. Our focus here is giving victims consultation and a voice at a critical point in the criminal justice process, without creating undue cost or delay, or in any way undermining what we feel must be balance in a fair trial.

We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners as they implement this legislative measure in their respective jurisdictions.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair and colleagues, it is my hope we will continue to work together at the federal level to ensure this bill restores victims to their rightful place at the heart of our criminal justice system.

I thank you in advance for the work you are undertaking in looking at this bill in detail. I thank you for your diligence on a number of legislative agenda items you have before you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us. We're here to talk about Bill C-32.

The floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 46. It is televised. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 20, 2014, Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

Appearing before us is the Honourable Peter MacKay, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Before we go to the minister, everyone has in front of them the budget from our review of the prostitution bill that was before us in the summer. We had allocated $39,900. We are slightly over that. We have one more bill, I think, that just came in. We have approval for $39,900 and we are asking for approval for another $5,000 just to make sure we cover everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 45, and we're in the Valour Building. For those who didn't know, the name changed over the summer.

For orders of the day, we want to start with committee business. We are starting the fourth report from the subcommittee that deals with the miscellaneous statute law amendment. We'll see how far we get.

Then on Thursday, the report says that the minister is appearing to start the discussion on Bill C-32.

Will somebody move that for me?

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House for their comments. I appreciate them. This is the great thing about our democracy. We have open debate and discuss the issues that concern our citizens. I am also very thankful that I belong to a party that allows backbenchers like me to bring forward issues from my constituents in a private member's bill.

As a person of deep faith, I had some challenges when I first looked at the bill, because my faith is based on confession, repentance, and forgiveness, but I came to the realization that my compassion should not trump justice for the victims.

I talked to a woman in my riding, a wonderful person, Marie Van Diest, who had twin daughters, and one of her daughters was murdered on the rail tracks in Armstrong. When she came to see me to talk to me about justice, she said that she just wanted life to mean life. She did not want to go through parole hearings. She said she was young, and 25 years from now she would still be young, and she did not want to hear this over and over every second year. I came here to represent her, because I agreed with what she had to say.

All the organizations that support victims of crime in this country have come out in support of the bill. I attended a justice round table in Kamloops, and every member around the table was very supportive of the bill.

I am pleased to be here for the second hour of the debate on this private member's bill, and I do thank my colleagues for their comments.

Once again, I thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for initiating Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility) as Bill C-478 back in February 2013. My bill has merit and will provide guidance and accommodation to our judiciary to further protect victims of violent crimes. This is about victims, not the offenders. My bill would support Bill C-32 in recognition of victims' rights and in protecting victims from the pain they would have to endure as they listened to parole hearings time and time again.

My colleague suggested the Norwegian model. I agreed with that, and we do that in our system, but the victims of crimes do not want to hear that over and over again. They have a healing period of 25 years. They do not want to go through opening up those wounds and reliving the tragedy they experienced in their lives 25 years previously.

The bill targets sadistic murderers. These sadistic criminals have never been granted parole, yet the families of the victims still face parole hearings every two years, reliving once again the tragedies of their loved ones. The bill seeks to extend the parole ineligibility period for those convicted of abduction and heinous and brutal acts of violent or sexual assault ending in the murder of an individual.

Once a parole hearing has been given and denied, almost the whole process starts over again. Making murderers ineligible for parole for up to a maximum of 40 years could save families approximately eight unnecessary parole hearings.

Why does the bill ask for a maximum of 40 years before a parole hearing is allowed? Murder is 25 years without parole. Abduction faces a maximum of 10 years, and sexual assault a maximum of 4.6 years. My bill would empower the courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who abducted, sexually assaulted, and killed our loved ones from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years.

I am hopeful that the bill will pass second reading and be sent to the justice committee for further comment and further study, but I thank all those who have contributed, and I appreciate the opportunity to present the bill to this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained in the private member's bill before us today. The amendments contained in Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Shuswap, are based on the same fundamental idea that underlies many recent legislative initiatives passed by Parliament, which is the interests of victims of crime and of their families and loved ones.

That fundamental proposition is a straightforward one. Families and loved ones of murder victims should not become the secondary victims of a convicted murderer by being forced to relive the details of their terrible loss every time the killer applies for parole.

As hon. members may recall from past debates, both first and second degree murder are punishable by life imprisonment, subject to a period set out in section 745 of the Criminal Code, during which the murderer may not apply for parole. While all murders are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murder are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with first degree murder that justifies the longer mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While the mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility for second degree murder is 10 years, it may be increased in two situations.

First, if a second degree murderer has been convicted of a prior murder or of an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the parole ineligibility period will be automatically set for the same as first degree murder, namely 25 years. In such cases, the fact that the murderer has killed before is considered to increase his or her moral blameworthiness up to the level of a first degree murderer.

Second, even if the second degree murderer has not killed before, a judge has the discretion under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code to impose a period of parole ineligibility of up to 25 years based on the murderer's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard. In short, the higher the degree of moral blameworthiness associated with a second degree murder, the longer the parole ineligibility period that may be imposed to reflect it.

It is important to keep the concept of moral blameworthiness in mind when considering the proposals put forward in Bill C-587. These proposals are directed at the most morally blameworthy of murders, those in which the murder victim has also been subjected to an abduction and to a sexual assault by the murderer. It is hard to imagine a more heinous series of acts committed against the victim.

The issue before us today is that, with the exception of the case of multiple murderers, the maximum parole ineligibility period for murder permitted under the Criminal Code is 25 years. This is true, no matter how terrible the circumstances in which the murder may have been committed.

As for multiple murderers, I am aware that in 2011, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act came into force. These Criminal Code amendments permit a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period on a multiple murderer for the first murder in accordance with the provisions I have already described. The judge will also be authorized to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods of 25 years, one for each victim after the first, to ensure that the lives of each and every victim will be reflected in the sentence ultimately imposed upon the murderer.

In short, this important legislation would help to ensure that no victim's life would be discounted at the time of sentencing.

However, the result of the seemingly arbitrary limit on parole ineligibility of 25 years on those who kill once in the circumstances reflected in Bill C-587 is a symbolic devaluation of the suffering of the murder victim, as well as an apparent disregard of the extreme level of moral blameworthiness exhibited by the murderer. One has only to recall the horrible murder of Tori Stafford by Michael Rafferty to realize the truth of this statement.

The member for Malpeque just said that this bill was a solution in search of a problem. I would ask him to review the terrible circumstances of the murder of that young girl, Tori Stafford, and then stand back up in the House and say whether there is no problem that needs to be addressed. This, in my view, addresses this situation and this problem. This problem has, unfortunately, occurred all too often in Canadian history. That is what we get from the moral equivalence of the Liberal Party.

Allow me to be more specific about what Bill C-587 would do.

First, it would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to require a mandatory parole ineligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of murder who had also been convicted of committing one of the listed kidnapping and abduction offences, as well as one of the listed sexual offences against the murder victim. In short, the 25-year period would only apply if the murderer had been convicted of three offences against the same victim. This would ensure that this measure would be applied only against those whose crimes would justify this level of sanction.

Second, the bill would authorize a sentencing judge to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years based on the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offences and any jury recommendation in this regard.

As I described earlier in the context of second degree murder, these are well-established Criminal Code criteria that permit the judge and jury who have heard the evidence at trial to make this important sentencing decision. Under the existing law, murderers who kidnap and sexually assault their victims already receive long sentences. This would continue to be true under Bill C-587.

However, the bill would also protect families and loved ones of murdered victims from the trauma of repeated parole applications of the murderer. As the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap said, when he introduced this legislation on April 7, “Sadistic criminals convicted of such heinous crimes are never granted parole, thus the hearings are unnecessary and are extremely painful for the victims’ families to endure”.

I will point out the terrible trauma that the victims of Clifford Olson went through when he had multiple parole hearings, even though we all knew, and he knew, that he would never be released. However, every two years, he would require the families of those victims to appear before a Parole Board hearing to go through and relive the horrible murders of their children over and over again.

In short, the bill is not just about creating stiffer penalties for sadistic murderers by allowing a judge to impose up to 40 years of parole ineligibility on the depraved murderers targeted by these measures. This bill is also about saving the families and loved ones of the victims from having to go through the agony of unnecessary and often traumatic Parole Board hearings.

If the member for Malpeque does not believe there is a problem here that needs to be solved, I would ask him to go and speak to the families of some of these victims and hear about the torture that they go through having to relive the awful circumstances of the murders of their loved ones over and over again. I would refer him to Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is the mother of one of Clifford Olson's victims. Perhaps he should speak to her and hear her point of view on this matter.

This is the fundamental proposition at the heart of the important measures proposed in the bill. It is far too often the case that the families and loved ones of victims experience a greater degree of pain and experience a greater sense of loss because the justice system has failed to protect them from being re-victimized every two years when the murderer applies in vein for parole.

Moreover, Bill C-587 is entirely consistent with past legislation passed by the House, such as the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. It ensures that a life sentence of imprisonment for murder means just that: life in prison.

I will point out that in the past the Liberal justice critic has said that if the Liberals were to form a government, they would repeal that law which removed the faint hope clause and they would restore the faint hope clause, allowing murderers like the late Clifford Olson to have those continual Parole Board hearings.

Bill C-587 is also entirely consistent with another piece of important legislation that the House is also being asked to examine, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which was introduced on April 3 of this year. The victims bill of rights would put victims at the heart of the justice system in order to rebalance the scales of justice away from criminals and toward those who have suffered at their hands.

Bill C-587 is yet another example of this long overdue rebalancing. I urge all hon. members to examine it from this point of view. If they do, I am sure they will agree with me that it ought to be moved to the committee and third reading to ensure that it becomes the law of the land in the shortest time possible.

I thank all members for their attention and urge them to come together in the interests of the families and loved ones of the truly horrific crimes targeted by Bill C-587, such as the family of Tori Stafford. I strongly urge all members therefore to give their full support to this bill and ensure its swift passage.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

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

You took the words right out of my mouth, and you're obviously very skilled at this.

It is indeed a technical amendment. The government is proposing the amendment to clause 48 of the bill, as you pointed out. It is a coordinating amendment between Bill C-36 and Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. Coordinating amendments determine which amendment, as between two pieces of legislation, governs in the event that both are passed into law.

In this case, the coordinating amendment at subclause 48(6) relates to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code, which governs the issuance of publication bans in cases involving sexual offences.

Our proposed amendment is to the English version only and would correct a discrepancy between the English and French versions of subclause 48(6). This is a technical amendment, as I pointed out, to ensure that the English version accords with the French version, as the French version properly coordinates the amendments.

For those reasons, we are proposing and will support this amendment.