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.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I would like to begin by saying that the NDP is going to support this bill so that it can be examined in committee. We should examine it clause by clause as carefully as possible. We are going to ask the witnesses called by the government, the NDP and the third party good questions, because that is important.

We have been waiting eight years for this bill. Finally, it is here and we have to be able to work with the government to make changes and amendments if necessary.

I am going to provide a bit of background. This is a promise that the Conservatives made eight years ago. When the Conservative government took office, it promised, at several press conferences, that it would introduce a bill to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights. It happened this year. Until September 2013, Justice Canada held in-person and online consultations and finally Bill C-32 was introduced.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime actively participated in these consultations and provided a list of nine recommendations, most of which the government took into account.

My speech will focus on our concerns and what aspects of the bill we should examine together in committee.

The office made the following recommendations for a bill of rights: 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 limit opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or re-offend.

At first glance, the Canadian victims bill of rights takes into account most of these recommendations. However, there are a few that I am concerned about, and that I believe weaken this bill. As I mentioned a number of times, I hope that we will be able to work together as good parliamentarians should. The victims of our country are already fragile enough and we must give them all the help we can. That is how we will make progress.

The problem with this bill is that it does not provide for any financial assistance. We have heard that no one knows just how familiar victims will be with their rights. My colleague also talked about that. We do not know whether victims will be aware of what assistance they can request. We have to wonder whether support will fall to community groups.

I have an interesting statistic that shows that, right now, community groups provide the bulk of assistance to victims. The work is often done by volunteers. Groups that provide services to victims usually have employees, but they also have volunteers who provide assistance to victims. In 2011-12, 72% of victim service providers relied on volunteers.

I love volunteering and I think it is important, but I am not sure whether victims of crime should be dealing with volunteers. Should they not have access to someone with training in that field? It is not always easy to work with crime victims. They are dealing with a lot of feelings, emotions and an incredible amount of stress. It would be good for the bill of rights to provide for some funding to organizations that provide assistance to crime victims.

I have another concern about the money being allocated. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.

A victims bill of rights should, first and foremost, provide financial assistance. Costs borne by victims could be associated with transportation, communication or support, for example, when they need help getting to a particular location. A first step would be to help cover the costs associated with the consequences of being the victim of a crime.

Furthermore, according to the 2009 General Social Survey, 7.4 million Canadians reported being a victim of a criminal incident in the preceding 12 months. Since this bill affects one-quarter of Canadians, we must listen to them. I am sure that that the topic of costs came up during the consultations that were held.

According to that same survey, 47% of women over the age of 15 who said that they had been sexually assaulted by their spouse or a partner in the preceding 12 months said that they did not report the assault to police. It was sometimes out of shame, out of fear of retribution or out of fear that no one would believe them or that they would be blamed for what had happened. If nearly half of women who are victims of assault do not feel they can report it to police, out of shame or for other reasons, perhaps it is because we need to provide services to those women.

If women are ashamed to report that they are victims of a crime, we need to ask ourselves what can be done. The victims bill of rights will help victims who go to the police and take legal action, but we need to make sure that we have something to help the men, women and children who are afraid to go to the police. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any provisions to address that problem.

We are calling on the government to send this bill to committee. We want victims to have access to the support and services they need. That is of the utmost importance to us. That is how we can best address victims' needs. We acknowledge that, for many victims, being able to participate in sentencing and parole hearings is progress. However, as I said, there are elements in the bill that could be strengthened.

To conclude, I would like to quote Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime. On April 3, he said:

It’s a good bill, as far as it goes. 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 added:

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.

These days, it is all about keeping people informed. Without financial backing, it will be difficult to make sure that victims are well informed. The bill of rights should include provisions to ensure that victims get the support and help they need. The government says it is tough on crime, but when 50% of female victims of crime do not report the crime to the police, we have to ask ourselves some questions. We have to convince these women that there will be progress and that the police will take them seriously and be with them every step of the way as they deal with their very difficult situations.

I would like to reiterate that I will be proud to support this bill, but I hope that my Conservative colleagues will be able to work with us to improve the final version of it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we show respect to all members of this place, particularly given the nature of the bill before us, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

As I have mentioned, we fully support this bill, but we have raised a number of issues. The bill could be strengthened with some straightforward amendments. I note that a good number of the inadequacies that we have pointed out mirror those raised by the ombudsman, and I will reiterate those shortly.

I am pleased to say that in the courts in my province, and most likely courts across Canada, victims of crime and families of victims have been allowed in many instances to present victim statements both for sentencing purposes and during parole proceedings. It is very important that those most impacted by crime have an opportunity to be heard.

We fully support the principles of this legislation. These promised provisions have been a long time coming. It is good that the government has finally come forward with the bill. It is regrettable, however, that the government failed to include resources in the budget to enable people to participate constructively in these processes. That is one of the inadequacies clearly identified by the victims and the families of the victims and the ombudsman herself.

We support sending the bill to committee. We look forward to recommendations from many quarters as to how the bill could be strengthened to protect the rights of victims while participating in the criminal process.

The media covers bad cases in every jurisdiction. There is great sympathy for the families of victims of serious crimes. In my city there was the case of Dougald Miller, who was attacked and seriously injured and has been bedridden ever since. He is being tended to by his wonderful wife Lesley Miller, who has attended every court session and every parole hearing. Our heart goes out to her. At committee we hope that one of the recommendations will be for more resources to be provided to the families who are left to deal with the impacts of crime.

As I have mentioned, one of the most cogent presentations on this bill was made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. I would like to reiterate to the House what the ombudsman's comments have been on this bill.

She, as we have, commended the government for introducing the first ever victims bill of rights and for the consultative process that took place, but there continues to be debate about the bill's contents and some of its inadequacies. She said that Bill C-32 marks a significant cultural shift. She recommended that it be strengthened by adding additional provisions. I would like to outline some of those provisions to the House.

The federal ombudsman previously made 30 recommendations to the government to be included in the bill. Her commentary speaks to where she feels the government has and has not addressed those recommendations.

It is important for us to keep in mind that the ombudsman prepared her recommendations after direct consultation with many victims of crime. They are solidly based recommendations premised on the actual experiences and needs of the victims and their families.

The ombudsman also stated that she supports expanding the definition of “victim” to include those who experience property damage, but she is concerned that it excludes certain categories of persons who might be harmed. She suggested that could be revisited.

The ombudsman supports, as do we, victims of crime being recognized, but there is no way for them to exercise that right. While it is called a right, there is no recourse to exercize that right. Normally when rights are enacted, there is some kind of mechanism whereby those rights can be enforced, such as in the courts, at a tribunal, or some kind of formal complaint process where there is redress. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide that. A number of people have raised that issue. I think that will be discussed in committee. We are hopeful, as is the ombudsman, that those inadequacies will be addressed.

It also allows the victim, on request, to have access to the defender's bail or probation order. Suggestions have been made that this should not have to be a request, because many victims or their families may not be aware of these rights and opportunities, and that this information should simply be automatically provided.

Here is one issue that has been raised by one of my colleagues, our critic for public safety. Interestingly, simultaneous to the tabling of this bill, there was another bill tabled that dealt with victims' rights. It was victims' rights before the Parole Board, I understand. These two bills will come forward to two different committees simultaneously. One will go to the justice committee and one to the public safety committee. However, they do not seem to be particularly consistent. Therefore, it is recommended that this be considered during the review of Bill C-32.

One of the recommendations has been that in many cases with these crimes—and certainly I can speak to this because I was one of the founders of the sexual assault centre in Edmonton—victims may not feel comfortable attending proceedings and coming face to face with the accused. Therefore, the recommendation is that, in the review of the bill, perhaps we give consideration to video conferencing so that the victims could, potentially, just observe the proceedings, or they may even be willing to give testimony or statements, but not be physically present.

In addition, the ombudsman has commended the fact that judges will have to take victim safety and security into account at various stages of the criminal process including bail, plea bargaining, sentencing, protecting against production orders, testimonial aids and measures to protect witnesses. Indeed, it is good that victims of crime and their families who are impacted should have potential access to all of these proceedings. However, from my experience, the biggest barrier for impacted persons—whether it is a regulatory offence, or whether or not it is an important decision impacting a community, or whether or not it is an alleged crime—is that they do not have equal access to the resources to participate constructively. This has certainly been the problem in many environmental reviews, many environmental appeals, and is also the same problem with victims coming forward.

Regrettably, there are also few to no resources made available in many cases. For example, there may be a crime that occurs in Fort McMurray, Alberta, but the family of the victim may be based in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, it would be a huge expense for them to appear at a trial or a parole hearing and actually testify. They would have to pay the travel expenses. They may have to take time off work. They may have to get child care. There are two potential solutions here. One is to provide the funding so that they can genuinely intervene, or secondly, use video conferencing.

Therefore, I look forward to all parties taking a close look at this bill in committee. It is one thing to suggest that it is good that victims should be able to participate. It is another thing to actualize that right. That right is only actualized when they can constructively and realistically participate.

I look forward to questions from members on the bill. Again, I commend the government for coming forward, but we look forward to the government actually being open to amendments, and open to amendments coming from all quarters. I know that all parties look forward to witnesses coming forward and testifying.

The House resumed from June 6 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.

Bill C-32—Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to. So we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night, and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

Victims Bill of Rights

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by assessing the merit of what is new about Bill C-32, which creates the Canadian victims bill of rights.

As I have done in the past, I will assess this bill's merits, meaning that I will focus on specific components of the legislation we are looking at today. Given that Bill C-32 is quite broad and I do not want stray off topic, my comments will address specific elements.

Some provisions in this legislation introduce changes to administrative rules and rules about the admissibility of evidence. During my speech, I will try to define the potential impact that this will have on the practice of criminal law, for both the prosecution and the defence.

I often try to relate bills to my former profession. That is why I will try to take the principles of the bill and apply them to the practice and reality of someone who practises law. That is my goal for the next few minutes.

I will also talk about the possibility of a victim's spouse testifying if the victim is deceased or incapable of acting on their own behalf, as long as the couple has been in a conjugal relationship for more than a year. That is one of the components of Bill C-32; however, the Canada Evidence Act already addresses that issue.

It seems to me, based on my evaluation, that the government is simply trying to take credit for that measure, since most Canadians are not necessarily aware of the subtleties of the Canada Evidence Act and the rules governing the presentation of evidence. It is quite possible that the government is introducing concepts in its bill that already exist and are automatically applied by lawyers, legal practitioners and those involved in the justice system. This would give the government a certain amount of media coverage.

This aspect of Bill C-32 merely codifies a pre-existing override to the best evidence rule. This rule is set out in the Canada Evidence Act and applies to all criminal and civil proceedings and any other matters under federal jurisdiction.

The best evidence rule is one of the first notions students learn in criminal law courses. According to this rule, jurists and judges must always try to find the best evidence. If a witness has evidence to present or wants to be heard, then technically, he or she must be allowed to testify.

The same is true under the Canada Evidence Act. Under Bill C-32, if victims are physically or emotionally unable to appear in court and testify as a result of the incident that occurred, their spouse could testify on their behalf. There are terms, conditions and technicalities that go along with that, and the victim and his or her spouse also must have cohabited for a period of at least one year, but the fact remains that the spouse could come and testify on behalf of a victim who is unable to do so.

The Canada Evidence Act already provides for that eventuality. Subsection 6(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, entitled “Evidence of person with a physical disability”, reads as follows:

If a witness has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible.

This provision covers any physical disability that would technically prevent an individual from testifying in court.

I would also like to quote subsection 6(2), entitled “Evidence of a person with a mental disability”, which reads as follows:

If a witness with a mental disability is determined under section 16 to have the capacity to give evidence and has difficulty communicating by reason of a disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible.

What the government is trying to codify today with this victims bill of rights is, to a certain extent, already covered. My colleagues opposite will likely object and say that minor details have been changed and updates have been made, including the length of time that the couple must have been cohabiting before the spouse can testify on the victim's behalf. However, this eventuality is already covered. I will come back to the idea of updates later.

By way of information, I am going to read subsection 6(3), which says the following:

The court may conduct an inquiry to determine if the means by which a witness may be permitted to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) is necessary and reliable.

The rules are flexible and apply case by case. The court has to determine whether, under the Canada Evidence Act, the witness who should technically give evidence as an individual is in full possession of his faculties and competent to do so. There is significant latitude and discretion here.

That is more or less how criminal law works on the ground. Judges enjoy significant latitude, and legal interveners in general enjoy significant latitude in applying the rules of evidence. I have seen situations in which witnesses were called to testify even if they were in a separate room or a special booth set up for that purpose. There is equipment set up in the courts to handle any situation, such as when it is a child or a victim who does not want to face the attacker. All kinds of situations are taken into account, and the justice system being what it is, it has to adapt to the realities and vagaries that come up from time to time in a jurist's life.

The main objective of the NDP legal experts assigned to study this bill in committee is to ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights is a good fit with the Canadian justice system and responds to the victims' expectations and recommendations. That is the problem because aside from all the window dressing and highly publicized media events, we must first and foremost focus on the essentials. I keep saying, like a broken record, that we must focus on the position expressed not by just a few individuals or groups whose message provides a good sound bite, but also by all Canadians. In this case here, we know that there are many victims all across the country. Rather than using victims for purely utilitarian purposes, we must truly listen, take note and adjust our own legislative tools accordingly.

The bill before us has all the hallmarks of a utilitarian initiative geared toward gaining—

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I soberly rise this afternoon to debate Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. This bill is quite large and just the summary takes up several pages. Thus, I will not be able to discuss the entire bill at length.

As legislators in the House, we are often called on to strike a balance. When we draft laws, we are always looking for balance, sometimes between complicated things that at first glance seem contradictory, and we have to be able to harmonize them.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have solid democratic institutions and law and order. There is a separation between the legislative branch, whose power we exercise in the House of Commons, and the judicial branch. It is very important to remember that when we draft and debate bills.

All members, no matter their politics, have the same objective: to improve this country, serve Canadians and defend the interests of all Canadians, not just those of specific groups. Sometimes when we launch our political career, we have different and deep personal convictions or motivations. However, we must not let these personal convictions get the upper hand of certain fundamental principles that govern our country.

With respect to the victims bill of rights, the NDP is listening to the victims and to their demands. We want their voices to be heard because they often suffer in silence and receive no support. They go through very trying times.

With this bill, the government seems to want to give victims a voice. However, will the bill give them the means to make this happen?

According to the analyses we have looked at, there is no evidence that this bill would provide the means to implement this bill of rights.

The summary states the following:

(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.

I cannot discuss this in detail, but we have to ask ourselves whether these measures can really be implemented. What the government is trying to do here is make sure that individuals accused of crimes compensate the victims. That can be problematic because sometimes those accused of a crime do not have the means to compensate the victim at all.

The government actually had a commission in place that could compensate victims of violent crimes. I looked into this recently, and some provinces have created commissions to ensure that victims of violent crimes are compensated, but that is not the case across Canada. Maybe the government could find a way to include in the victims bill of rights a mechanism to help victims through a commission that could compensate them. I encourage the government to do that.

It will also be worth our while to carefully examine other issues in committee, because some of them may surface later on. Therefore, it will be critical to conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee.

For example, as I mentioned, what steps will be taken regarding damages incurred by victims? Also, as I pointed out during the debates, the bill presents the theory, the plan, the intentions. However, how will this be implemented in our justice system? As we know, there are long delays right now. There are lineups, so to say. Will this bill make the process more cumbersome or not? I am not saying the government's intentions regarding the victims bill of rights are not good. However, we must determine whether this will bog down the process.

I also noticed that victims of domestic violence would be required to testify. I am not sure if I understood correctly, but we should really take a close look at this provision. We must understand that domestic violence is a very particular issue, and we really need to be careful.

This huge bill means well. It is a matter of knowing whether the government is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement it and to ensure victims are truly protected.

I also hope that at committee stage the government will listen to those who will propose necessary amendments to this legislation.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, this bill is a step in the right direction. At the same time, there are many flaws in the bill and many resources missing. What is more, the government talks about giving victims more rights, but Bill C-32 establishes no legal obligation for those working in the criminal justice system to implement these rights.

I would like my colleague to comment on an excerpt from a quote by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes:

Enhancing victims rights in criminal proceedings is certainly necessary, 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.

What is the point of having this bill if at the end of the day the rights cannot be implemented and there are no resources to help the victims?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill. I should note that I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I do want to start on what I recognize is a negative note. Most of what is in the bill is indeed positive. However, the bill is extremely limited in its understanding, both of the needs of victims, and the responsibilities of society through government to help victims. If we are all going to be supporting it going to committee and possibly voting for it at third reading, I think we have to make sure that the hype does not outdistance the reality. Much work will need to be done on deeper issues around victimhood than the bill addresses.

I may not go as far as leading lawyer Clayton Ruby has gone in calling this “shallow symbolism”. However, I would agree with the first victims ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, when he commented, on April 3, to CBC, that the government has over-promised and under-delivered in this bill. Not to get into the crazy game of grading bills, but I guess I will. He said that he would give this a C-plus or a D-minus, without even looking at what the government had been promising in advance. The hype in advance means that he would probably give it an even worse grade.

By way of introduction, I would also note that a victim's mother, who spoke on Global News, said something that I think is extremely eloquent. She said, “Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth”.

That is not to say that is entirely true about the bill, but that is generally the situation when it comes to how victims, including the family members of immediate victims, friends, and even the community, the neighbours of victims, are treated in our society. This does not have to be the case. There are societies where a much more coordinated, holistic, and robust response to the pain, the grief, and the trauma caused by crime is dealt with more effectively than in Canada.

One of the reasons that it is not dealt with that effectively here has to do with one of the virtues of our country, which is federalism. That means that by and large this has been left as a kind of social service in the philosophy of the federal government. The federal government gets involved in sporadic funding for post-crime victim support, but it is just that; it is funding, and it is not an attempt to truly create a national framework.

I first became aware of a limitation in the government's approach to victims of crime when early after being elected, I was on the justice committee, considering a bill that would increase offender surcharges. A number of members of the committee clearly stated that between surcharges—that is, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime pay—and provincial programs, the federal government's responsibility for assistance, which includes the need for programs and funding, basically ends.

I felt then and I feel now that this is a highly inadequate view. It does not understand our jurisdiction, federally, over crime and criminal law. It basically leaves victims after the court process, in terms of jurisdiction to create programs, and completely buries that responsibility, as I said before, within ad hoc spending power involvement.

I do not want to say there is nothing in the bill. There is an addition to this philosophy of perpetrators paying, in sections 16 and 17 of Bill C-32. These are new restitution provisions that bring our criminal law closer to some civil law models, where every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender. If that order is made by the judge, the order is entered as a civil court judgment that can be enforced against the offender. This is a welcomed provision.

However, everyone will recognize that it has limits. It would require offenders to be capable of paying. It would be the same problem that we have with surcharges, in that it would be a very inadequate way to ensure we are focusing on the victim and that there is compensation.

The restitution feature would only add another element to that, which would be far outdistanced by situations in which offenders and perpetrators who are convicted would not have the resources. Therefore, the idea of a restitution order would have no meaningful impact on the kinds of compensation that could help victims to deal with trauma and grief and pick up the pieces after their own victimization following a crime, or that of a loved one.

At around that time, I began to interact with a very inspiring woman in my constituency. Joan Howard lost a son over ten years ago, in 2003, to gun violence. He was shot dead with a handgun in the hallway of a building in Toronto-Danforth.

Kempton Howard, after whom a park is named in our riding, was a role model to countless teens, through his volunteer work in Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre's Boys and Girls Club. He was a moderator of a junior leadership program, an after-school children's program leader, a summer day camp counsellor, and a youth basketball coach. He was also a recipient of the Youth Ontario Volunteer Services Award.

Joan spent many years dealing with the trauma and the long-lasting grief, and then she began to ask herself what she could do. She has done many things. She has become part of a peer support system, which I will talk about briefly, if I have time.

More recently, we have joined together for a petition campaign that has been tabled on many occasions in the House. That petition asks the House of Commons to better understand that victims of crime, especially crimes of violence and crimes involving guns, include the loved ones of the direct victims. As a consequence, we need to create a meaningful countrywide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as for victims of crime who survive the crimes against them, and ensure adequate funding for such a system.

Reverend Sky Starr runs an amazing program called Out of Bounds, with the thematic subtitle of “grief support from the inside out”, which involves the mutual peer support model. Between Joan and Reverend Starr, I have become inspired, or at least better informed, about the need to take trauma and ongoing grief seriously, as something that destroys lives and whole communities.

To that end, we had a teach-in here on the Hill, on December 10, 2013, which happened to be international Human Rights Day. It was a seminar on the Hill, to which a number of MPs from all parties came. Actually, the Conservative Party did not come, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice did send a staff member. The staff member seemed to have been extremely moved by what he heard and learned. We hoped that this session would go back to the parliamentary secretary and then to the Minister of Justice to factor into the coming victims bill of rights. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the case.

That said, I do not think that anything in the victims bill of rights precludes us from moving forward in the future on a better understanding of the basic points that Reverend Starr made during that seminar. She outlined three crucial needs. First, there is a need for sustainable funding for grassroots organizations and resources to help organizations find funding opportunities to actually help victims. Second, trauma-specific policies are needed to deal with the lack of trauma support that currently exists in communities. Third, the recognition of grief as a mental health issue has to be first and foremost a starting point. The grief and trauma that flows from gun violence, in many ways, is very particular and very long-lasting.

I will end my comments by paying tribute to another member of my community, Jonathan Khan, who was shot dead on the Danforth with a gun. I attended his funeral in a synagogue in North Toronto only a few months ago, and again had occasion to realize how easily lives are destroyed, not simply the lives of those killed, but those who survive them.

The only thing that propels people forward are support networks. We, as a society, need to help create those support networks and not rely only on families.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have, in particular, and my speech will address it, is that there appears to be no attached funding envelope for the victims bill of rights, Bill C-32. That could be the way the bill has been drafted, to not actually involve the need for material resources, but I rather suspect that, in order to adequately implement a bill of this sort, extra money would be needed to make it effective.

I would like to ask my colleague whether or not he sees the lack of a bringing together, a convergence, of funding in the bill as a problem and whether or not that should be taken into account in any way at committee stage.

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 Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-32 this afternoon. It is really interesting to be able to stand and recognize that the government has actually done a fairly good job on this piece of legislation. It is one of those things for which time allocation should not be required. It is one of things that, I believe, is not controversial.

I would look to the minister, who has done a fairly decent job in bringing the legislation forward. From what I understand through our critic, the minister reached out to different regions of our country to get a better sense of what this bill should look like and, ultimately, brought in the legislation.

I cannot help but think that there are, no doubt, many other pieces of legislation that would have benefited from the same sort of attitude in terms of reaching out to Canadians for input. In particular, there are the changes to the Elections Act that we had.

It is important to recognize that this legislation would build upon previous work from the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien governments. Victims' rights have always been important. In fact, our critic provided me with one document that makes reference to a revised version of the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, which was done in 2003. That provided great detail on the principles to guide legislators and service providers in the promotion of access to justice, fair treatment, and the provision of assistance for victims of crime.

Just given the number of points that are listed here, there might be some value in me reading the list. The document, referenced in the preamble to the victims bill of rights now before the House, identified the following principles as intended to promote the fair treatment of victims.

They are as follows:

1. Victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

2. The privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible.

3. All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims.

4. The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation.

5. Information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes.

6. Victims should be given information, in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress and final outcome of the proceedings; and the status of the offender in the correctional system.

7. Information should be provided to victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation.

8. The views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures.

9. The needs, concerns and diversity of victims should be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services, and in related education and training.

10. Information should be provided to victims about available options to raise their concerns when they believe that these principles have not been followed.

In 2005, the Liberal government announced new initiatives to support victims of crime, including allowing victims to apply for financial assistance to attend the national parole board hearings of the offenders who had harmed them.

I think it is fair to say that members of the House, as a whole, though I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, have long been concerned about victims and understand and appreciate the importance of ensuring that as much as possible is done to take into consideration the rights of victims. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Liberals find ourselves supporting Bill C-32. As I have indicated, the bill would continue to build upon other government initiatives in a very positive fashion.

The Liberal Party critic pointed out at second reading that the bill was broken into two major areas. The first is the Canadian victims bill of rights, which would specify that victims of a crime would have a right to information about the criminal justice system. He used the example that the bill would provide access to some elements regarding the status of a particular investigation. It would include measures to protect the security and privacy of victims. As well, it would ensure that victims would be shielded from any form of intimidation. The bill would also provide victims, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the right to convey their views and have them considered, as well as to make victim impact statements and seek restitution orders.

I will pause here to say that I had an opportunity, in a much smaller capacity, to serve in a very rewarding way on a youth justice committee. We were moving in the direction on how we could get victims more involved in dispositions and we felt that in certain situations, it would be appropriate, if at all possible, to invite the participation of victims. An example might be where a young person vandalized or stolen from an individual or company and the circumstances around the meeting with the youth in question would allow the victim to be brought before the justice committee, along with the youth, to work together in coming up with a disposition.

We found a great sense of accomplishment when both the victims and the perpetrators felt, through that process, that the disposition was appropriate, particularly from the victims' perspective. They saw justice being applied first hand. I was not directly involved because I was the chair of the committee, but on a couple of occasions when I was directly involved, the victims felt wonderful about the opportunity to be engaged in the process and to be a part of it.

The bill specifies, when these types of rights apply, who can exercise them, how complaints are to be treated, and the interpretation of this act relative to other acts. It is important to note, even though those are the two major aspects of the legislation, that some other amendments are being proposed. When I had the opportunity to go through them, I thought allowing victims the right to seek publication bans was interesting and quite important for us to recognize. That change would ensure that harm of victims would be considered also in sentencing.

There is a number of reasons why we should be satisfied with the legislation as proposed. This is not to say that the government could not have done a better job in the drafting of the legislation prior to going to committee.

Some concerns were expressed, and I will point out the three that have been provided to me.

One is that the bill provides for enhanced information sharing, but does not outline the responsibility for this in specific terms. This is an area we thought had fallen short during second reading debate.

I also note, through presentations that were made and feedback received, that it does not address the fact that most victims do not know they need to register with the Parole Board or Correctional Services Canada to receive information about the offenders who have harmed them.

The third point is that the bill would allow for certain victims to be informed of a plea bargain, but would not allow victims to have a say before a plea would be accepted.

These are some of the views that were expressed by the Victims Rights Ombudsman and others, both formally and informally, and raised with the Liberal Party, committee members and so forth.

We need to recognize that the victims' rights are of the utmost importance, but I want to conclude my remarks by making a general observation with regard to victims as a whole.

I believe that there is so much more the government could do to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. The government needs to start investing more time and energy into this.

Yesterday was wonderful. We were able to debate fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the chamber. If this disorder were identified at any earlier stage, it would go a long way in assisting some in avoiding the justice system.

There are some simple things that could be done. I get frustrated very quickly when I hear many different stories and concerns from Winnipeg North. I get frustrated in the sense that we have been unable to better provide for Canadians as a whole. However, for me specifically at this moment and for residents of Winnipeg North, we should try to come up with alternatives for our young people, in particular, that would take them away from gangs. I do not think the government does enough in that regard. What other alternatives through programming might we be able to provide?

I recognize there are different roles and responsibilities, depending on the level of government, but the national government has a strong role to play in the coordination, ensuring that the different stakeholders are brought together, that dialogue occurs, that there is a sense of best practices that occur in the many different jurisdictions and communities.

The current government has fallen short on this. The Prime Minister believes that the least involvement of government, the better it is for society as a whole. That approach can be best seen in a wide variety of actions, or lack of actions, by the Government of Canada, but in certain areas, it can even more so. A couple that come to mind right away are health care and justice.

When I was first elected in a by-election, one of the primary, if not most important, messages I wanted to convey to members of this privileged chamber was that people in our communities needed to feel safe. However, there are certain areas or pockets across the country where that sense of security in one's home is challenged at times.

If the government really wanted to make a difference, it could do so in a more tangible way. I will give a couple of examples of that. It is all about how we might be able to prevent future victims.

One of the things that really frustrated me was issues related to community policing. It was quite upsetting when we had community police offices in Winnipeg's north end being closed down. It did not matter whether it was the provincial or national government, and to a certain extent the municipal government, but no one seemed to stand and say that it was not the direction in which to should go.

We have had former chiefs of police in Winnipeg indicate very clearly that community policing works and can be effective. I know first hand just how effective it can be. When we collectively allowed community policing to be closed down, we really allowed for more victims in the future.

Through community policing, as an example, we will find that it is better able to work with young people and get a sense of where the problem areas are. In doing so, it is able to prevent crimes from taking place. I believe this would have made a difference.

I can recall when the current Prime Minister came up with a pot of money to be used to increase the number of police officers. I understand that money was given to the different provinces. However, in Manitoba, that money was just put aside. I do not know if it was ever used, but it was a commitment that came from Ottawa saying that it wanted to see more police out on the streets in our communities.

Well, that did not happen, even though Ottawa wanted allocated money for it. It was because there was no sense of co-operation from Ottawa and the province to ensure that in fact would happen. Instead, we saw a pot of money put to the side, and the province did not act on the initiative with the city of Winnipeg.

That was unfortunate. Whatever the arguments might have been, the bottom line was, who paid the cost?

The Prime Minister, on the one hand, said that the government would put more police on the streets, but, on the other hand, he was not successful at that because he did not work with the different stakeholders. At the time, it meant that the police officers he promised never materialized, at least not in a timely fashion. As a result, we might have lost the opportunity to have prevented some crimes from taking place. This is what it really boils down to. There needs to be more co-operation with the federal government and the different stakeholders to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

If I could send a message to the Prime Minister today, it would be that we need to take a more holistic approach in dealing with crime in our communities and provide the type of programming that will make a difference to prevent victims in the first place and to prevent crimes.

That is what I think we need to start getting tough on, the causes of crime.

I look forward to future budgets in which we will see this as more of a priority and in which there will be an allocation to prevent crime from taking place in the first place.

The House resumed from June 3 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, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to speak about our government's unyielding determination and commitment to support victims of crime in our country.

As members of the House know, we recently took a big step forward in this regard with the introduction of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. This particular legislation, developed and designed to respond to the long-standing concerns of victims of crime would, for the first time, enshrine in law four important rights: the right to information, the right to participation, the right to protection, and the right to restitution.

In fact, many of the concerns expressed earlier by the opposition parties are actually addressed in this particular bill. It is also historic in that it would transform the way in which the criminal justice system interacts with victims of crime. Quite simply, but also quite profoundly, the victims bill of rights act would ensure victims have a greater voice in the criminal justice system. We are grateful for the support we have seen for that legislation and we look forward to further debate about its many merits.

However, today we are here to discuss Bill C-479, the fairness for victims act. It is yet another example of our government's strong commitment to standing up for the victims of crime. It would build on the significant action we have already taken in this regard, including the victims bill of rights act and many other initiatives put forward since we came to power in 2006.

Not only have we instituted and permanently funded the federal victims strategy, but we have also passed several legislative measures to strengthen the parole process and give a greater voice to victims. Indeed, with the passage of the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, we enshrined in law a victim's right to present a statement at parole hearings and ensured a victim's access to timely information from the Correctional Service of Canada about offenders' transfers.

Additionally, we have put in place measures so that the Parole Board can proceed, with some exceptions, to a decision even if an offender withdraws a parole application within 14 days of the scheduled hearing. Before our changes, a victim would have been inconvenienced travelling to a hearing that did not even take place.

Bill C-479 is also in line with the promise our government made to keep Canadians and their families safe. As ever, we remain focused on tackling crime and creating a fair and efficient justice system. Our government has continually placed the interests of victims ahead of those of criminals, and I would hope that the members opposite will start to support these important measures. I am pleased to hear today in the House that both parties will be supporting it.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again commend the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his tireless work for victims and for bringing this important legislation forward.

As members know, there were some amendments adopted at report stage. We are confident that we now have before us the best legislation possible for the good of all victims. We thank members for their support in getting this legislation to where it is today.

Let us discuss the ways in which it would modernize the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as how it would help victims.

First I would like to speak to the changes we have proposed in regard to mandatory review periods for parole for offenders convicted of violent offences, including murder. When such offenders are denied parole, the Parole Board is currently required by law to review their case every two years. This legislation would now extend this period of review from two to five years.

We have also proposed to lengthen the mandatory parole review periods when parole is cancelled or terminated for offenders serving at least two years for an offence involving violence. It would increase this mandatory period to within four years in which the Parole Board must review parole, and for later cancellations the mandatory period would be increased to five years.

Why is this so important to victims? Let us not forget that many of them participate in hearings. If we pause and reflect for a moment and try to imagine the anxiety and distress that victims might feel leading up to the process of a Parole Board hearing, it becomes clear why a longer period of time between these hearings is desirable. Indeed, giving victims a longer period of time in which to rebuild their lives and heal from their ordeals is a reasonable, measured change that we can offer them. When we studied the bill at committee and heard from victims who chose to attend hearings as a duty to honour the lives of the loved ones they had lost, this was one of the most critical changes in their minds.

The bill would also require the Parole Board to take a number of further steps to better accommodate victims and respond to their needs.

For example, it would require the Parole Board to provide victims and their families another means to observe hearings remotely if they have not been permitted to observe in person. Similarly, it would obligate the Parole Board to take into account any victim statements presented, especially when considering what conditions may be appropriate to ensure the safety of the victim. We know, because this government has listened to victims, that many wish to lend their voices in a more significant way during this process. These changes would allow this to happen.

Finally, it would obligate the Parole Board to provide more information to victims. This is important, because here again, we have heard from many victims that they want and need to be more informed about a number of issues that relate to the offender. With this bill, we would have an opportunity to allow for some of this information to be provided where it made sense to do so. For example, if a transcript of the parole hearing were available, it would be provided to the victim, barring third-party information and any portion of the hearing that was not open to observers. Similarly, upon the victim's request, it would also provide information within 14 days of the offender's release, where practical, about the date, location, and conditions of an offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, but only when it was clear that there would be no negative effect on public safety.

Simply put, this bill would improve the parole process for the sake of victims, making it more compassionate and responsive. I am proud of our government's track record in supporting victims and their families as they navigate the criminal justice system. We are getting closer to where we need to be. We are a government of action. We have listened to victims and their families and to advocates. We have consulted directly with them and have made sure that their concerns are reflected in the legislation and measures we have introduced. We have listened, and we have acted through the federal victims strategy, through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, through the victims bill of rights act, and now through the fairness for victims act. This bill would help us continue on this path and take one more step toward a system that helps victims heal and rebuild.

I once again would like to thank the members opposite for their support, and I urge all other members in the House to support this important piece of legislation.