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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Victims Bill of Rights

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I say trepidation because I have an unlimited respect and admiration for the resilience of victims of crime. That is why we, as Canadian parliamentarians, do not have the right to mess things up by making victims believe or hope for options that the law would not offer them.

I have to say at the outset that I will support this bill at second reading so that it can be considered in committee, where numerous experts who are much more qualified than I am will give us their insight. We will then be able to improve this bill, which, by many accounts, already has flaws that we must address before it becomes law. It would indeed be embarrassing to pass Bill C-32 only to see it fail to reach its goals.

I must admit that the Conservatives' strategy makes me uneasy. It took them eight years to put forward such a flawed proposal, but, during all that time, they tried to score political points by holding press conferences and photo ops.

The NDP, however, has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims' groups and specialists to determine how to really help victims. If creating a victims bill of rights is indeed the right approach, and if it is to be more than simple lip service, then it must be properly backed up with the resources it needs. At this point in the debate, Bill C-32 still makes no mention of funding. The devil may be in the details, but it seems to me that resources are more than mere details. I am legitimately concerned that the bill will be just for show, a simple list of principles, rather than the outcome of a genuine desire to support victims.

A good number of people who work with victims share my concerns. Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, has accused the Minister of Justice of not living up to his promises. In a CBC interview on April 3, he said that the bill itself was fine, the main problem being that the Minister of Justice had failed to live up to his promise to put victims at the heart of the justice system. He expressed some concern that many victims would only read the headlines rather than taking the time to read the actual bill, which would lead them to believe that the system has fundamentally changed when in fact it has not.

We are just as concerned as Mr. Sullivan is, and we will do everything we can so that the bill achieves the stated goals.

I could quote dozens of other people who worry that, as it is now, Bill C-32 does not seem able to meet expectations.

Our job and main objective in committee will be to make sure that the Canadian victims bill of rights fits into the Canadian judicial system, meets victims' expectations and responds to the recommendations they made.

For the people who are watching us, I would like to summarize the recommendations in nine simple and easy-to-understand points: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limited opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or reoffend.

I agree this is an ambitious agenda. At first glance, we must recognize that the proposed bill of rights meets some of these requirements. For example, it broadens the definition of a crime victim and it codifies the right of victims to information, protection, participation and restitution.

However, this bill of rights does not create legal obligations for other stakeholders in the judicial system. It simply provides access to a vague mechanism to file complaints with various federal departments, agencies and organizations that have a role to play in the justice system when victims' rights are infringed.

As with many other Conservative bills, this bill seems to lack the means to fulfill its ambitions. It seems that no specific funds have yet been allocated to implement these complaint mechanisms or help out the provinces. The bill of rights also contains limitation clauses stipulating that the proposed rights have to be exercised in a reasonable way.

“Reasonable”, that is the kind of weasel wording that causes confusion and that, unfortunately, is a trademark of the Conservatives. They used the same kind of wording in other bills. I could, for instance, mention the concept of “suitable employment”, which creates a major headache in the implementation of the new employment insurance system. The Conservatives seem to be masters at including deliberately undefined and confusing weasel words allowing the government to renege on its commitments as soon as things heat up.

This is why we hope that the bill will be thoroughly studied, clause by clause, in committee under the eyes of experts who are much more qualified than your humble servant. I will support this bill at second reading mostly so that we can study it thoroughly.

We sincerely hope that partisanship will give way to an effective and determined effort to seek the best solutions possible so that we can offer victims more than hope, namely the means to take action and the resources to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I had promised to follow up on some testimonies from people who expressed their concerns about Bill C-32. I am therefore keeping my promise so that we can be prepared to find answers for the issues we are considering in committee.

I would like to quote Mrs. Lori Triano-Antidormi, the mother of a murder victim and psychologist. While going through her own tragedy, she helps other victims overcome hardships. Here is what she told us: “This bill will create false hopes for victims.” Let us hope that we will be able to allay her fears about that.

The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes also welcomes the bill. The Association points out, however, that the bill of rights will be effective only if the mechanisms giving the victims recourse when their rights have been infringed upon are truly accessible, and if we allocate the resources to make that happen.

A more scathing comment came from Mr. Frank Addario, a criminal lawyer. He said:

The Conservative government's agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect.

As you can see, these quotes show a wide range of perspectives. While everyone wants to give the government the benefit of the doubt, hoping that the bill will materialize and really meet the expectations that it created, there is also some degree of skepticism and concern. These three examples really highlight the challenge we are facing and the government's responsibility to be open and responsive to suggestions at the committee stage.

If the past is any indication, it does not bode well, as the Conservatives have often proven unreceptive, even closed-minded, when their proposals or methods have come into question.

I sincerely hope that, when it comes to Bill C-32, our empathy for the victims' tragedies will bring us together as compassionate human beings, rather than divide us into different camps based on our party's colours.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.

I must say that I am having a harder time than he is being optimistic about all of this. He will know why once I ask him this question, even though I know he is not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, but maybe between the two of us we can figure this out.

When reading Bill C-32, as it now stands, it is clear that the justice system is not legally obligated to uphold the various rules in the bill of rights. That is why my optimism is somewhat muted. There should at least be some sort of basic minimum. I have a feeling that all of the witnesses we will hear from in committee will talk about the fact that there should be a clause like that in the bill. After eight years of working on this, it is still not there.

Does he feel that, once again, the Conservatives are creating false hope with these ideas that will not be enforced on a daily basis?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts is an attempt—again, an attempt—to provide better support to victims. I am not a lawyer or a health specialist. Also, Mr. Speaker, allow me to stick to the principles. You will understand why a little later.

Support for victims should not be combined with revenge or vengeance. The judicial process is not just centred around the relationship between victim and criminal. I understand that there needs to be more room for victims in the judicial process, but settling for just that would be like having a body with no arms or legs. It is only part of the equation.

In fact, in my opinion, a victims bill must also support people who need assistance. That is the best thing we can do. We must take a holistic approach to supporting the victim. This bill, however, is only one piece of the puzzle.

Helping victims takes more than just using rhetoric to score political points, to look good, to have a photo op. That is not it at all. We must stop putting victims in the spotlight, in front of the cameras, and make room for people who need help in a process that, I repeat, is always painful. It is not a question of using fine words, but of taking action.

To cite a few examples to support that, on April 3, the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said:

It is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime.

This example from the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes alone illustrates the holistic approach I was talking about earlier.

I could also quote Sheldon Kennedy, the famous hockey player. He said:

[this is about] the process of trying to be better at the way we handle victims, not only through the court process, but really understanding the damage that happens to victims.

He also talked about how we could assist victims to overcome their pain and, if possible, helping them return to a healthy, normal life.

I want to share a quote from Andrew Swan, the Attorney General of Manitoba. He said this:

We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it.

That is how it seems, but anyway.

[I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable—like Manitoba's support services office—then it is an empty gesture.

The point is that it is important to support victims throughout the legal process and to provide better assistance, but some thought also needs to be put into this. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke about this in her speech. We need to support victims throughout a process that, we must admit, is a painful one. There is nothing pleasant about the process. What we are saying is that we should not make things worse; the focus should be on healing. That is what is important, and it is a huge part of this.

I am surprised that after all these years of talking about support for victims, the government did not give more consideration to how to provide support for victims outside the legal process. It has not gotten any further than that. My colleagues mentioned some necessary improvements with respect to support during the legal process.

I do not understand why the government has not assessed the issue of victim support more thoroughly after spending all these years talking about it.

Let us not forget that the federal government and the provinces, its key partners when it comes to justice issues, share jurisdiction on this. Everybody has to move in the same direction, meaning the federal and provincial governments have to take a collective and collaborative approach to supporting victims. I hope that the minister will address the issue from that perspective. If not, we will see a political party's agenda instead of a real political will to support victims.

Moreover, the consultation has to be as broad as possible. We must not go too fast; we need to get it right. It is important to allow everybody—victims, experts, health care professionals and the general public—to participate in this discussion, which will lead to a better framework for victim support.

If the government is willing to hold this broad consultation, this Parliament will have accomplished something noble. This is not a purely partisan debate where we and the government are on opposite sides. Fundamentally, the goal is to find out how we can best support people who have gone through a traumatic experience. That is the crux of the matter. Do we really want to work together to help these people in the best possible way?

I ask the government to consider conducting this broad consultation, so we can hear everyone with something to say and use their comments to improve the bill. The committee stage would be a good time to conduct the consultation and transform this first draft into legislation that really benefits victims. It is of the utmost importance.

When it comes to supporting people, principles are not enough. We need to invest money eventually. We cannot promise to help people and offer only goodwill. A number of volunteer organizations support these victims. We need to support the groups that offer support. It will take money to make things happen.

I would also like to see a commitment spelling out how we are planning to help these people. Would that be possible? How can we support this measure? That is key. If we do not spell out how the support and collaboration will occur, we will never reach a viable solution, and victims need viable solutions.

In closing, I think that the government and, by extension, this Parliament, has no right to disappoint victims with a faulty bill. We will support the bill at second reading because it really needs improvement. Despite what we have seen these past years, our side remains optimistic. We hope that we can all work together to improve this bill, for the benefit of victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I would like to point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading because we feel it should be studied at committee. However, we are definitely not giving the government a blank cheque. I do not think we should conclude consideration in committee until experts have spoken to us about specific aspects of the bill. That is why we feel very strongly about it going to committee. I sincerely hope that, for the victims' sake, we will take the time to conduct an in-depth study at committee and that the committee will be open to the potential amendments put forward by the opposition. I hope that we will take the time to do a non-partisan study. I think that it is particularly important, when talking about victims, not to be excessively partisan.

One thing disappoints me. The Conservatives have been talking about being tough on crime since they formed a minority government in 2006. They have consistently increased penalties for crimes, imposed minimum sentences and talked about victims. However, it was not until 2014 that they decided to introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights, when they could have done it at any point since 2006. I feel it is particularly disappointing to see that they have waited until their mandate is almost up to decide to work on this issue.

Since the government came to power, it has proposed increasingly severe legislation, as though the only thing victims want is harsher punishment for those who commit crimes. With respect to victims, I do not think that the various aspects were fully explored.

To begin, many of those aspects are not of a legal nature. They are related to the process and how we should be treating victims and listening to them. One of the first things that comes to mind is the whole process of revictimization or investigation.

Let us take a case of sexual assault as an example. Someone has been victimized in a very intimate way. As part of the legal process and obtaining evidence of the assault, the person undergoes an examination at the hospital. There is a kit for sexual assault, for rape.

I am a nurse. I have worked in emergency and intensive care. I was trained to use this kit. It is not much fun. When a person is raped, we have to look for physical, material evidence. To convict the rapist, we have to invade the victim's body when she is still in a very vulnerable psychological state. When we use the rape kit, we are kind of victimizing the victim all over again. Everyone understands that it is part of the legal process, but it is not easy to do.

For the Canadian victims bill of rights, we have to make sure there is money so that the people using these kits are properly trained and have the tools they need to help people in such sad situations.

There is something else that is not covered by the Canadian victims bill of rights: the right to be heard, believed and listened to. Often during the investigation, whether the crime was serious or not, people ask questions that can be a little biased. The victim might get the feeling that nobody believes her, that they think she is responsible for what happened, that she is being accused of making excuses or making things up. That is a very hard thing to go through for a victim who experienced a traumatizing event and found the courage to talk about it. For example, from the way the investigator asks questions, the victim might get the feeling that the investigator is practically accusing her of making the whole story up.

That can be unbearable for a victim. The bill of rights does not touch on the right to be listened to and believed, and that is a shame. That is exactly the psychological aspect I was talking about in the questions I asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

This bill of rights is very closely tied to the legal process. In some cases, there is no trial because the guilty party is never found. In many rape cases, the rapist is never found. If no charges are laid, the victim is not considered a victim in the eyes of the law because it cannot be proven that a crime took place if there is no trial. There can be obvious signs of rape on the woman's body, but if there is neither a trial nor a conviction, she is not considered to be a victim of crime.

In the case of other victims, the offender may be found, but lack of evidence may prevent the victim's case from going before the courts. These women will not be considered victims, even if a crime is committed against them and they are traumatized. The victims bill of rights will not apply to them because there was not enough evidence to take their case to court.

In other cases where a trial does take place, the criminal may be acquitted for different reasons. I will not go into all the details, but the victim is not considered a victim even though she has suffered psychological trauma. She lives with the impact of the crime day in and day out. That is also not recognized by the victims bill of rights.

There are other situations where people are not identified as victims. I am talking about cases where the attacker dies, for example as part of a family tragedy. The father kills his children and then kills himself. He will obviously not be tried in court, and thus the victim will not be considered a victim under the bill of rights. That is very unfortunate.

When the bill to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights is studied in committee, I recommend that the government take the time to talk to victims. I would like the government to step out of the legal realm and examine the possibility of giving rights to victims who will not be considered victims. I am talking about victims who do not press charges and whose attackers will not be incarcerated for the various reasons that I mentioned. Could they be included?

I hope that in committee we will take the time to listen to leaders of community organizations and health professionals who work with victims of crime in order to determine a holistic approach to helping victims. The bill of rights should recognize that victims have the right to be heard instead of just being linked to a judicial process.

There will still be a lot of work to be done when the bill is studied in committee, and we will do it. I sincerely hope that the Conservative government will take the time to do a thorough job.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their customary support. Today, I am pleased to be speaking to An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I should point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading. That said, we are not giving the government a blank cheque, that is for sure. We are supporting this bill so that it can be studied properly in committee and so that we can hear from experts, witnesses and perhaps even victims. We want to amend this less-than-perfect bill. We will support it so that we can work together to improve the situation.

We clearly want to provide victims of crime with tangible support. However, for that to happen, we need to be sure that this bill of rights is not just empty rhetoric. I personally have never been a victim of crime, but I can put myself in a victim's shoes. I know it would not be fun.

A responsible government that promises such measures to victims of crime—people who have gone through difficult experiences—should implement those measures properly, by listening to experts. People on the front lines also need to be able to implement them.

I should also point out that we have been waiting for the government to do something about this for eight years. I say “we”, but of course I mean that victims, too, have been waiting for the government to do something. The government promised in 2006 to give us this bill of rights. Why did victims have to wait eight years? For that whole time, they have not had these tools, they have not had any help coping. It is appalling that they were made to wait so long.

Ministers held press conferences and photo ops and promised all kinds of things, but they never actually did anything. Now we have something, but as I said earlier, we really have to make sure that this is not just pie in the sky and that it will really be done. In the meantime, victims are still waiting. The government cannot keep human beings waiting so long when these are such serious and sensitive issues.

Another problem with this bill is that it creates no legal obligation for people working in the justice system to implement the rights that are being given to victims. The government is setting up a system, but it is not making sure that anything will really happen and has told us nothing about how it is supposed to happen. Will this law just gather dust while they talk about how we have a bill of rights? That is what I am afraid of. I wonder about that.

Does the government really care about victims, or did it just introduce this bill to look good? We will find out what the government's real intentions are when we look at this bill in committee. Will the government not just hear from experts but really listen to them? Will it take all of this into consideration? I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I sure am looking forward to finding out what it is going to do with all this.

I would like to talk about some of the highlights of Bill C-32. First, it broadens the definition of “victim” to include individuals who have suffered property damage, physical or emotional harm or economic loss. It also clarifies the fact that the spouse of a victim can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf if the conjugal relationship has lasted for at least one year, of course.

It is still a good improvement and it is important that it be implemented.

The bill also changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release, because his appearance may have changed, for example.

It can be difficult for victims to know that their attacker is free to walk the streets when they do not know what he looks like or where he has ended up. The bill also allows victims to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.

In my opinion, victims have a right to this information, and this really must be implemented and enforced.

The bill also makes this interesting improvement:

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.

Bill C-32 also creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated. Here again, we see that there is no legal obligation for stakeholders to put all this in place. Will this really be done and will victims really be able to file complaints with departments without having to fill out a ton of paperwork and take serious legal action?

We know that victims of crime are sometimes vulnerable and have difficulty coping with the situation. Will the government really help these people to do what needs to be done? I look forward to seeing that happen.

Finally, the bill also codifies the right to make a restitution order and specifies that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed.

I would like the government to specify what constitutes a “reasonable time”. I know it is a small detail. However, it is not a small thing for victims because a reasonable period of time could be two years, five years or even six months. I think it is important for victims to have that information.

In any case, we can hardly say no to this bill. We support it because victims need a bill of rights to protect them. However, we question some aspects of the bill. The necessary resources for implementing these measures have not been included in the bill, and I want to see those. I want to see how the government is going to implement this bill, who is going to work on it and how. That is what we need to see in this bill.

We are going to hear from experts in committee, and I truly hope that the government will consider what they have to say because, unlike us, they work in the field. We will see whether the government is open to real consultation or whether it plans on imposing a bill unilaterally and without consultation, just to look good. We will also see whether this bill really meets the needs identified by experts and victims.

I will gladly answer any questions.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, after this proceeding, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act. I know that my hon. friend, the President of the Treasury Board—a man with firm views on paper documents—is very keen to get this debate started.

Tonight, after private members' hour, the House will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. Once that is done, I look forward to picking up where we left off this morning with second reading of two bills to create new parks: Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, in the greater Toronto area, and Bill S-5, which will establish a new national park reserve in the Northwest Territories.

If we have time left before midnight, we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act (Quanto's Law); Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act; Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and Bill C-21 if we do not finish that by 5:30 today.

Tomorrow will be the sixth and final day of second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, a bill that, despite lengthy debate, all parties agree should be studied by our hard-working justice committee.

However, the highlight of this week will of course come later this afternoon. The Usher of the Black Rod will knock on the door and summon us to attend the Governor General in the Senate chamber where, with the three constituent elements of Parliament assembled, we will participate in the ancient ceremony of royal assent.

Based on messages read from the other place, and messages I anticipate later this afternoon, 14 new laws will be made upon His Excellency's imperceptible, or barely perceptible, nod. This will mark a total of 25 bills passing through the entire legislative process since October's Speech from the Throne. Of these, 20% are private members' bills, further underscoring the unprecedented empowerment of members of Parliament under this Prime Minister's government.

Speaking of the time passing since October, we are also marking the end of the academic year. This means the end of the time with this year's fine class of pages. Here I know that some in the chattering classes have concerns about the length of my weekly business statements, but I hope they will forgive mine today.

As we all know, the pages work extremely hard and do some incredible work, both in the chamber and in the lobbies. They perform many important duties, which in some cases go unnoticed, or at least so they think so. They show up before the House opens each morning and stay until after it closes at night. We all know that over the past few weeks, it has meant much longer days than usual, but even then, the pages have remained professional, respectful, and have started each day with a smile, and ended it with one too, although that occasionally required a bit of encouragement on my part.

I would first off like to thank them for their service. Without them and their support, members of Parliament would not be nearly as effective and efficient in performing the duties that Canadians sent us to Ottawa to undertake.

I do have some insight from being married to a former page, from the class of '87 actually, and she often refers to her year as a page as the best year of her life. Here I can say that the experiences the pages have had at the House of Commons is something they will remember for the rest of their lives.

In addition, I know that in my wife's case, some of the friends she made in the page program are still good friends to this day, including, in fact, the chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party. I hope that will be the same for all of you, that is being friends for life—not that other thing.

I am sure that the pages are looking forward to the summer break so they can all take their minds off of school and visit with friends and family to share their many stories and experiences, some of which are even funny, with us here in the House. I will not be surprised one day if we find some of them occupying seats in this chamber, something that happened for the first time in this Parliament with the hon. members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Mississauga—Brampton South, both having been elected to sit here in this Parliament.

Some of the pages may also find employment on Parliament Hill working for members, and I know that I have, without fail, been impressed by the high calibre of ambitious young people who have worked in my office during stints as page.

Over the past three years, the House has worked in a productive, orderly, and hard-working manner, and this has not been possible without the help of the pages. I believe it is safe to say that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I thank them for their dedication and service, and finally, give them our best wishes for success in all their future endeavours.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that excellent member has dedicated so much of her life to helping victims, in particular those victims of human trafficking. She has worked closely with individuals who would best be described as vulnerable Canadians. She knows the justice system is a complex system that often requires legal guidance that is not always available.

The victims bill of rights is meant to help those who find themselves as victims. It is meant to help those who are often witnesses in court to access services, victim services in particular. These services are available far more readily now than they were when I practised law some 15 years ago. Victim services are set up in every territory and province and programs are designed specifically to provide that type of support.

This bill of rights would entrench in law the right to information, the right to restitution, the right to protection. It would give victims a better feeling knowing that they were included in the system, that their voice would not only be heard, but would be important and responded to. Crown prosecutors, lawyers, judges and police are enthusiastic about the legislation, but no one more so than victims themselves. They have been waiting literally years to have this type of protection, this type of ability, to have legislative protection. That is why we need to move the bill forward as hastily as possible.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know they are anxious to get to their hot dog and hamburger party tonight, but this is an important issue. We are dealing now with victims rights. We want to move this legislation along, so we can actually protect victims in Canada, so we can have the bill in place that would accord them protection from re-victimization in the courts. It would allow them a flow of important information, so they can make decisions for themselves and their loved ones.

Bill C-32 has had five days of debate in the House of Commons. We know there will be ample further opportunity at committee. There will be an opportunity when the bill comes back to the House. I do not know why they do not want to do their jobs: show up, debate important bills, and allow Canadians to see that this Parliament actually functions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to be here to support government legislation, bills that have been introduced through my department. Bill C-32, as the member knows, is a very important piece of legislation pertaining to victims rights, which he has now clearly indicated his party is supporting. I believe that may be the case with the Liberal Party as well.

I note that the bill has been debated for five days. There have been hours devoted to the opportunity for members of the opposition, as well as government members, to rise in this place and clearly put on the record new ideas and constructive suggestions that might add to the bill.

The member speaks of representative democracy. He would know that time allocation motions have been used throughout the history of this place. He would also know that we now have an opportunity to send the bill on to committee, where we can actually hear from Canadians. In addition to the 308 members of Parliament, we would have an opportunity to hear from Canadians and organizations interested in advancing victims' rights. That is what the bill is about. We need to get it into place. We need to secure it in legislation, so that those rights would actually extend and protect victims in Canada today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.

I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.

To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:

Just words, always words...
Nothing but words
Words, words, words

That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.

For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.

Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.

For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.

Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone.

Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.

At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.

We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.

Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.

A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.

I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or moneys that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.

I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.

We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.

I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.

The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.

It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.

Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.

Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:

I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that

He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He wrote to me:

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

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

This is what he said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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