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.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-479 at third reading. As I said just a few minutes ago, we believe Bill C-479, as amended, contains important improvements in victims' rights.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his efforts to bring this improvement to victims rights before the House and to third reading, where it now seems assured to pass.

There are many provisions in the bill which would be of clear benefit to victims. Indeed, some of these have already become a normal part of the practice in the corrections and parole system. However, we agree that it is a good idea to entrench these rights for victims by placing them in legislation.

These rights include: the right of victims or members of their family to be present at parole hearings; the right of victims to have their statements considered by the Parole Board of Canada in its decisions regarding offender release; expanding the manner in which victims' statements can be presented at parole hearings through the use of technology, among other things; and requiring that the communication of victims' information be considered by the board. In other words, the victims would have a right to see what the board has looked at, so they can understand how that decision has been made.

Also, they include making it obligatory to provide transcripts of parole hearings to victims and their families, and making it mandatory to inform victims when an offender is granted a temporary absence, or parole or is released at the end of their sentence.

These are all good things, but there is one area in which we remain disappointed. That is the unwillingness of the government to go further in a very important area. We were surprised to see the government reject an amendment from our side, which would have expanded victims' rights in a proposal that would have allowed victims to choose other means of observing parole hearings than appearing in person.

We believe victims have the right to observe parole hearings by video or teleconferencing if they so choose. Strangely, with the way things work right now, victims only have the right to observe those hearings by video or teleconference if Correctional Service Canada has banned them from appearing in person.

It is a strange quirk in the rules. If victims have made threats or been disruptive and Correctional Service Canada says that they cannot attend the parole hearings, they are then allowed to attend by videoconference or teleconference. We believe this right should be extended to all victims.

There are many good reasons why any victim might not want to make use of the right to observe in person. Some victims would prefer not to be in the same room as the offender, whether out of fear or revulsion.

It would also allow those victims who would otherwise have to travel to attend a hearing. Perhaps an offender has been transferred across the country and a hearing is in British Columbia and the victims live in Ontario. If they could attend by video or teleconference, they would not incur travel costs and they would not have to take time off from work.

Hearings far from home have become a problem for many victims. Again, we believe that if we extended them the right to choose to attend by videoconference or teleconference, it would be an important improvement.

We remain concerned about one aspect of the bill, which is the provision that was just mentioned by the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale in his answer to the question from the parliamentary secretary. This is the provision that would give the Parole Board the discretion to extend the interval between parole hearings for those convicted of very serious crimes.

We have no problem with this provision when it is applied to those serving life sentences. In fact, we proposed to amend the bill to do just that. However, there is a risk that lengthening the discretionary period between reviews for those serving shorter sentences may inadvertently remove incentives for offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs.

In other words, if offenders are told that their hearings have been put off for four years, what would their incentive be, when they are in the corrections institute, to enter into those rehabilitation programs?

Again, for those serving shorter sentences, it may inadvertently increase the number of people who leave custody without supervision upon their warrant expiry. In other words, if they are told that their hearings have been put off for three years and their warrants expire in three years and six months, they would have no incentive. They would not participate and they would get out without any of that very necessary rehabilitation.

How do we avoid that happening? Obviously, we support the bill, because we believe we could avoid that if there were a well-funded Parole Board. The Parole Board would be able to avoid these unintended consequences.

However, we have a Parole Board which is now suffering from restricted funding and so there will be the tendency for the Parole Board to be forced to extend the interval between paroles simply as a question of resources. It will have other things it has to do by law and therefore if the interval allowed, and we call it discretion, is longer, then it will inevitably become longer if it does not have adequate funding. As we have seen with the Conservatives in power, quite often we have underfunding of very important public services, and the Parole Board is one of those.

Finally, we remain concerned with process, and that is the process of making extensive changes to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act through multiple bills proceeding through different paths through Parliament on different timetables. The sheer volume of the changes that have been made by different bills often considered in different committees risk legal errors and omissions as well as unintended consequences. Some bills go to the justice committee, some go to the public safety committee where I sit.

For instance, in the case of Bill C-479, the public safety committee did not have the advantage of seeing the text of the government's victims bill of rights, Bill C-32, and now it will go to the justice committee where the members of the justice committee will not have the benefit of having heard the witnesses and the testimony that we had in the public safety committee on very closely related issues. Again, we think there is a potential problem by having multiple private members' bills as well as a government bill on victims' rights all going through the House of Commons with different paths and different timetables.

This piecemeal approach also means that sometimes important issues never end up in front of the House. What readily comes to mind is the question of how we address other needs of victims other than their needs in conjunction with the legal system.

Therefore, improving victims' rights with regard to the legal system is important. As I said, for that reason we have supported bills like Bill C-42 and the bill in front of us now. However, victims have other important needs like compensation for losses they may have suffered, financial help with time off work, counselling or help with other expenses necessary to get their lives back on track. Neither Bill C-479 nor Bill C-482 have tackled this question and Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights, suggests the answer can be found in simply expanding the rights of victims to restitution.

The problem that we on this side of the House see is that unfortunately very few victims will ever be able to recover anything through the restitution process because of the obvious fact that most offenders have few resources. This was a point that I tried to raise last night in the late night debate on the victims bill of rights. When I tried to put forward the need to discuss a better alternative, which has the potential to treat all victims fairly and equally, I was nearly shouted down in the House. It may have been the late hour that caused some of the rambunctious responses on the other side of the House, but it again illustrates the problem of doing these things piecemeal through the House of Commons.

What I wanted to put forward briefly was the idea that what we really needed was federal leadership on an adequate compensation plan for victims through criminal injuries compensation funds. The Conservatives try to slough this off, saying that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Yet one province, Newfoundland and Labrador, and all three territories, have no such program and in the other nine provinces the criminal injury compensation funds have very low caps on the amount of compensation available to individual victims. In some cases, this is as low as $5,000. If we think about it, $5,000 will not go very far in trying to cover things even like lost wages.

As I said before, no party in the House has a monopoly on a concern for victims, but we sometimes have different approaches to the problem. We have been supportive of these attempts to expand victims' rights through the legal system, but we believe there are other needs of victims that also need equal consideration. As well, we have argued all along that one of the most important things we in the House can do is adopt programs and ensure that corrections programs do not contribute to further victims in the future. A well-funded corrections system is an important part of not having further victims in the future.

Therefore, we are looking for a balance in our approach to public safety, where we can build safer communities through having punishment in place but also having adequate rehabilitation.

As my time draws to a close, let me conclude, once again, by stating the support of the New Democrats for strengthening victims' rights in the legal system. However, I would urge all members to consider the other important issue, the thing that victims also need, which is well-supported programs in order to help them put their lives back in order.

Victims Bill of Rights

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I know it is getting late, but I would like to take this opportunity to share my views and take part in the debate on bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

In light of what is proposed in the bill, I think that we, as legislators, must all unite and support this government initiative. However, in my humble opinion, the bill does not go far enough in protecting the rights of the victims, and several experts share this view. I will come back later to the reasons why I think the bill should be improved.

Nevertheless, it is certainly a first step in the right direction, and we will be able to propose amendments in committee and at a later time, when the act is reviewed after being implemented, to identify what needs to be improved.

Therefore, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the victims of crime in a meaningful way, and that they will make sure that this bill of rights does not remain just a statement of principles with no actual effect.

In its current form, Bill C-32 codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution under the Canadian victims bill of rights. It also amends the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canada Evidence Act to incorporate these rights.

More specifically, the bill broadens the definition of “victim”, which will include any individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss, and clarifies the fact that a victim's spouse can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf. This applies to conjugal relationships having lasted for at least a year. I think this provision is critical to enhancing protection and fairness for victims.

Second, the bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to see a photograph of the offender at the time of the offender's release, to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.

This provision will help prevent potentially traumatic situations should the victim inadvertently come into contact with the offender. It also permits the disclosure of information that the victim can use to make informed decisions about how to live his life once the offender has completed his sentence. For example, the victim might make decisions based on the offender's release date.

Bill C-32 also amends the Criminal Code to ensure that the court informs victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor once the plea of guilty has been accepted.

These changes will enable witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in some cases, make publication bans for witnesses under the age of 18 mandatory, permit victims who do not attend an offender's parole hearing to listen to an audio recording of the hearing, and enable witnesses speaking on a victim's behalf to have with them a photograph of the victim if it would not disrupt judicial proceedings.

Another change has to do with the Canada Evidence Act and states 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 creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated.

It 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.

This is an entire series of measures that will likely bring the debate back to victims' rights, if the measures are applied. On the other hand, I see two major gaps that, in my opinion, should prompt my colleagues to work together to give this bill more teeth in order to truly bring justice to victims of crime.

Bill C-32 creates no legal obligation for justice system stakeholders to implement these rights. The charter only provides for but does not guarantee access to a rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated.

To date, no specific amount of money seems to be allocated to implement complaint review mechanisms or to help the provinces with this. If the Conservatives are serious and want to do more than make grand announcements at press conferences, then Bill C-32 would set out legal requirements.

My other concern refers to the same point, the fact that there does not seem to be any financial resources set aside for this initiative. How can the government consider providing protection, financial support or psychological support, as proposed in the bill, without a budget?

It is important that victims have access to the support and the services they need. We must invest and work with the provinces. The government must ensure that it provides the kind of support that is needed. It must implement procedures that will really help the victims and avoid proposing measures just to score political points.

Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, feels that the Conservative government's Bill C-32 should be amended because it could be stronger and it overlooks many aspects of the problem. She believes that the Conservative bill could improve Canada's penal system, but many of the measures could be far more forceful. In addition, many other issues affecting victims of crime were not even addressed.

She feels that this bill is problematic because the charter gives rights to victims of crime but provides little in the way of enforcement.

The ombudsman would like to see victims receive prompt redress by having access to a lawyer so that they can assert their rights during criminal proceedings. The ombudsman feels that the safety of victims is still a definite priority.

The NDP will always support victims in their quest for justice. We are mindful that those who have suffered are likely in the best position to educate us about what they need. They have lived through some potentially heinous experiences.

That is why we will continue consulting them and consulting victims' rights groups. By talking to those concerned, we will be able to create fair and effective legislation. I have no doubt that my colleagues will carefully consider any opportunities to improve the bill at committee stage.

The committee must ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights works well with our justice system and that it addresses victims' expectations and recommendations. The government has taken eight years to get to work on a 2006 election promise. Victims have suffered enough.

I invite all of my colleagues to roll up their sleeves so that we can offer Canadian victims the protection and rights that will help them find justice.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this important bill, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts. We have indicated New Democrats will be supporting the bill at second reading, and we are looking forward to studying the bill in committee.

We have also made it clear that changes, such as a number of the ones that are suggested in the bill, are long overdue. We know this very clearly from victims, from advocates, from victims ombudsmen, current and past. We know it is the right thing to do in order for victims to have a sense of justice and be able to move forward.

However, we have also flagged the real concern that, like much of what the government commits to, it will not actually materialize, particularly when it comes to resources. We have indicated concern that the federal government does not have a real plan when it comes to the question of resources that would be required, including restitution and/or compensation, and that discussions with provinces and territories are not taking place the way they ought so that all Canadians, no matter where they live, can have equitable access.

Today I would like to talk about the incredible disconnect between what the government is saying and its commitment to victims, and the fact that the government has been notoriously inactive when it comes to prevention of violence in our country.

I am very passionate about violence against women. As the status of women critic for the NDP, I have had the opportunity to meet with women who have suffered violence and survived violence. I have met with women who work in women's shelters, women who advocate on behalf of women who are survivors. I have met lawyers who support these women's pursuit of justice in the courts, and I have met with far too many Canadians, women and men, who feel the devastating impact of violence against women.

The situation, in terms of violence against women in our own country, a country where Canadians believe we are to be equal, I would only describe as being alarming. For example, half of all Canadian women have experienced physical or sexual abuse. The number from Statistics Canada indicates that at least half of the women over the age of 18 across the country have experienced physical or sexual violence.

I want to indicate that the survey was a one-time only survey and took place in 1993, so sadly we do not have more up-to-date information, but there are strong indications that the numbers have not changed.

Sexual assault and partner violence costs the country $9 billion per year. Partially, there is a lack of data. The CCPA released a report earlier this year titled, “The Gap and the Gender Gap: Violence Against Women in Canada”. That report attempted to total up all the costs, from the justice system to health care, incurred due to sexual assault and intimate partner violence, pegging the figure at $9 billion, around $334 per person per year. These victims were mostly women.

Just to give us a very realistic understanding of the cost of violence, and we are not talking about the emotional cost or the psychological cost or even the physical cost on one person, it costs each Canadian $334 to cope with this violence, to deal with this violence. It is an expensive proposition and one that we can certainly do without if we do our job when it comes to prevention.

More than 3,000 women stay in shelters on a given night to escape abuse. Based on surveys filled out by most of the approximately 600 residential shelter facilities in Canada, Stats Canada studies found that on a given night, about 3,300 women across the country were sleeping in shelters to escape abuse.

About 420 women are turned away each day, half of them because the shelters they are trying to access are full. Other reasons for refusing admission include mental health issues and drug-related impairments.

Those are sobering statistics that 420 women each day, very often later in the day, are turned away from shelters. It is not because shelter staff do not want them. It is not because administrators do not see the urgency to deal with the situation. It is because, oftentimes, these shelters are struggling for funds and they do not have the capacity.

While provinces like Manitoba make a real investment in women's shelters, sadly, the federal government has pulled away from supporting programming and core funding for the kind of work that is necessary.

Another statistic is that women are 11 times more likely to be victims of sexual offences. Extrapolating from police reports, Statistics Canada reported earlier in 2013 that violent crime against women was about 5% higher than it was for men, but women were 11 times more likely to suffer a sexual offence than men were and were three times more likely to be the victim of criminal harassment. This provides a very clear understanding of the way in which violence affects women differently and the way in which different kinds of violence are used to victimize women.

We also know that young women are most at risk. The same Statistics Canada report, in 2013, found that the rate of reported violent crime against women between the ages of 15 and 24 was 42% higher than it was for women between 25 and 34 and almost double the rate for women between 35 and 44.

One more final fact to add is that thousands of children are exposed to partner violence. Estimates of the precise number of children exposed each year in Canada to partner violence range widely, from about 120,000 to a high of 800,000. Regardless of the exact number, there is a body of research that suggests that children who witness such violence are more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes, according to Statistics Canada. These include increased risks of emotional behaviour and cognitive and social problems, with more severe outcomes for younger children.

There are six key facts that indicate that violence against women, and the impacts on children, men, families, communities, and our economy cannot be ignored.

As much as the victims bill of rights is important in individual cases, we know from experts who have testified already, and we are sure to hear from others, that this is not the end game and that there needs to be a comprehensive prevention strategy. That is why I am proud to have put forward a motion in this House calling for a national action plan to end violence against women.

I am not sure how many members of the government know, but Canada is the only country among like-minded countries that does not have a national action plan to end violence against women. It is shameful.

We know that violence against women is a part of our daily reality, that it is a part of our shameful reality, that in Canada, despite the gains that we have made as women, we are subjected to violence at greater rates than men, different kinds of violence, and that we continue to suffer day in and day out.

While we are going to hear, undoubtedly, as the bill goes on, more pronouncements from the government that it cares about victims, I would ask where its compassion is on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women. When we talk about violence against women, there is a particular racial reality, which is that indigenous women in Canada face much greater rates of violence simply because they are indigenous women.

We know from an RCMP report that came out a couple of short weeks ago that indigenous women in Canada face four times more violence than non-indigenous women. We know that young indigenous women are five times more likely to be killed than non-aboriginal women. These facts are startling. They are startling in abstraction, but I would say that they are horrifying in reality.

As someone who comes from a part of the country that has been deeply affected by the tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women, I have seen what it means. I have seen the way families break, the way communities are traumatized, the way people are set back. That trauma and that pain are only exacerbated every time a family member or someone who knows about this issue turns on the TV and sees the latest pronouncement by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the Prime Minister that no, there does not need to be an inquiry, or that no, there does not need to be more action, because the government is doing enough, or that no, they do not have to look at the systemic issues, the systemic sexism and the systemic racism that are behind the high rates of violence against indigenous women.

We know that the 1,200 aboriginal women the RCMP have said have gone missing or have been murdered over the last 30 years means that over 30 women every year did not come home to their families. We know that they are sisters, mothers, daughters, cousins. We know that each one of these women lived in circumstances that often were out of their control and that put them at greater risk. They were often marginalized.

When I hear about a victims bill of rights, and when I hear the government's pronouncements when it comes to caring about victims, I want to see the government take that extra step and deal with what is a national tragedy, that of missing and murdered indigenous women, and call a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. I would like to see it commit to an action plan, including a national action plan, so that we prevent having more victims.

I think of one of the many rallies I have attended here on Parliament Hill, where I saw a little aboriginal girl hold up a sign with a hole in it where she put her face, and the sign said, “Am I next?” These are haunting images. This girl has a greater chance of being a victim, the very issue the Conservatives say they care so much about. She knows that she is at greater risk simply because of her identity, because of the colour of her skin, and because of her gender. In a country like Canada, that is shameful. It is shameful to see the way the current government turns its back on aboriginal women, on women in too many cases, and yet continues the rhetoric that somehow this bill or the answers in question period are enough to put a stop to what we are facing.

I am echoing our support for what is in this bill and our real hope that at committee, we can add to this bill and improve it and react to the gaps that clearly exist, particularly in terms of resources. However, I would ask that the Conservatives listen to their own message and their own compassion, as they call it, toward victims. I ask that they take action where it really matters and look at the systemic nature of the violence women face in our country, that aboriginal women face, and that too many communities still face, and deal with the root causes.

We talk about victims after the fact, after the act of violence, the crime or the assault, has taken place. I wonder how much time members of the government take to look at the background of why there are higher levels of violence in certain parts of the country or why there is a greater propensity for there to be criminal acts in certain parts of the country. It is no secret. We have heard from experts who come to Parliament who point to the higher levels of poverty and marginalization among certain populations. I think of the first nations I represent.

I think of the way too many people in these first nations struggle for a basic quality of life. They live in third world living conditions. Their whole community has no running water. People live in mouldy, overcrowded homes with 17 people to a house.

Because of the history of colonization, people have been forced onto reserves that often have very limited capacity for economic development, so the levels of unemployment are outrageous. It can be as high as 80% or more. That means that the sense of economic marginalization people face is extreme. This is coupled with a history of residential schools, where children were taught to wipe away identity, culture, and pride in an attempt to assimilate them. All of these things were very much supported by the government. Those heinous acts have contributed to intergenerational impacts.

Too many people feel marginalized. Too many people experience social breakdown in their communities. Sadly, because of the way our justice system and even our police system have often responded, the element of systemic racism has also emerged. People, because of their identity, because of the colour of their skin, have been treated unfairly.

We know that aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal men, are more highly represented in our prison system. We know that this has everything to do with their living conditions and the way they have been marginalized economically, socially, and culturally in our country, yet the government's response has been to cut important programs, whether it is the prison farms, life skills programming, or healing programming. I think of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which the government also got rid of.

I wonder how much Conservatives actually care about victims or preventing the emergence of other victims if they are cutting the very programs that allow people to gain strength, to heal, to become healthier, and to pull away from violence or violent situations.

I think of the lack of access to treatment programs in my constituency. People come from across Manitoba and across the country to get treatment and heal from drug addiction and alcohol abuse at the medicine lodge in Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. I know that there has been a difficult relationship with the federal government in terms of ongoing funding, despite the overwhelming success of this program. The federal government and the Prime Minister have not been steadfast supporters of a type of programming that is sure to prevent violence and abuse in communities across the country.

Just last week, I gathered with leaders and health professionals in Manitoba to demand that the federal government renew its commitment to maternal health programming for aboriginal women. It made a commitment to women around the world while ignoring aboriginal women here at home. These kinds of supports lift women up from conditions of poverty and marginalization. They support and restore the relationship to that next generation so that they build healthier relationships, build stronger families, and prevent the kind of violent or difficult situations that too many families have faced.

In conclusion, I have indicated our position as a party on the bill, but our position is clear that support for victims means preventing the existence of more victims. It means investing in Canadians. It means bringing people in from the margins. It means building a better country for all of us.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us are taking the bill very seriously.

One of the concerns I have with Bill C-32 is that it would create a certain expectation, but there is no legal obligation with respect to the bill within the judicial system. That leaves me questioning whether that would raise the expectations of victims when we have not really resolved it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Bill C-32 needs to be amended, as it is too weak and fails to address many aspects of the problem. The main problem, in her view, is that the proposed charter gives victims rights but provides little in the way of enforcement.

Does the member think, like the ombudsman, that victims should be able to consult a lawyer without delay, so that they can assert their rights?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

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

This historic bill marks the culmination of the government's effort to finally give victims the voice and protection they deserve in Canada's criminal justice system.

I would like to pay particular attention in my speech to the rights and amendments relating to restitution that are designed to address the concerns expressed by many victims regarding the financial burden of crime. I will also discuss the amendment related to the victim surcharge.

We know that victims pay a disproportionate percentage of all costs related to crime. In 2008, a Justice Canada study found that victims pay 83% of the cost of all crime. A more recent Justice Canada study, published in 2013, found that victims also pay 83% of the cost of violent crime.

These findings are shocking. The rights proposed in this bill aim to correct this imbalance and to relieve the victims of some of the financial burden of crime.

On October 30, 2012, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made the following statement about the impact of crime on victims:

These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings. We also hear from victims about their not being able to afford counselling sessions...

Therefore, members will understand that it is fair and logical for criminals to make a contribution and to pay restitution to the victim for the offences committed. Naturally, the provinces provide victim services, but why should honest taxpayers be the only ones to pay?

The Canadian victims bill of rights proposes to clearly indicate that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and has the right to enforce the order as a civil judgment where not paid.

What is the purpose of a restitution order? The Criminal Code states that the purposes and principles of sentencing are to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

Restitution orders, which help cover the victims' monetary losses due to, for example, bodily and psychological harm or damage to property caused by crime, follow these principles.

Restitution has been recognized in modern countries for a long time. In the United Kingdom, the right of a victim's family to compensation in any case of wrongful death was reinstated in legislation in 1946. In the United States, restitution re-emerged in the early 1900s, when new sentencing laws allowed the courts to impose alternatives to incarceration.

In Canada, since its inception in 1892, the Criminal Code has permitted a sentencing court to order compensation for property lost as a result of the commission of an offence.The Canadian provisions governing compensation were mostly unchanged until amendments in 1996 repealed the compensation provisions, replacing them with restitution order provisions. The terminology was changed to reflect that “restitution” refers to payments the offender should make, while “compensation” generally refers to payments from the state.

The amendments proposed in the victims bill of rights would be important for promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and for their acknowledging the harm done to victims. Right now, judges do not have to consider the possibility of a restitution order. The victims are forgotten, because this provision of the Criminal Code is very rarely used. This means that the court ignores the suffering victims often face.

To ensure that the existing legislative framework properly supports these rights, the bill would make a number of amendments to the restitution regime in the Criminal Code.

The current regime in the Criminal Code allows courts to order restitution orders for loss, destruction, or damage to property as well as financial damages resulting from the commission of an offence, such as the loss of income, expenses associated with moving out of a household shared with an offender, or costs associated with identity theft. The amount sought in a restitution order must be readily ascertainable, which means that the amount of the loss is easy to calculate and is not in great dispute.

If the offender fails to pay the restitution as ordered, the Criminal Code allows the victim to whom restitution is owed to file the order in civil court and to have it enforced as a civil judgment. The government believes that restitution orders can be very useful sanctions in achieving the sentencing objectives of acknowledgement and reparation for the harm done to victims.

For some, restitution orders represent a way for offenders to make amends and contribute to society. It can also be a way of reconciling with the victim.

However, there is evidence to suggest that the needs of victims of crime are not being met through the current restitution regime. For example, Statistics Canada reported in 2010-11 that restitution orders form part of 82% of the sentences for crimes against property but are rarely imposed in relation to crimes against a person, only 10%.

In order to ensure that restitution rights stated in the Canadian victims bill of rights are meaningfully realized, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to direct that the judge shall consider ordering restitution as part of an appropriate sentence in all cases. Where the court decided not to order restitution, the bill would require the court to state on the record the reasons for its decision.

For the victims, this is a great improvement because the court will have to ensure that it considers every situation and thus every case that comes before it.

However, before deciding to order the offender to pay the restitution or not, the court would have an obligation to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps had been taken to provide the victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they were seeking restitution for losses or damages.

This is a great improvement because victims will have the opportunity to determine whether they are going to seek damages. They will have the right to be heard and to tell the court about the harm done. In that way, we will give victims one more voice in the justice system. For a victim, being able to obtain a restitution order is another step in the healing process and towards a more normal life.

Let us remember the victims, who pay out of their own pockets for such atrocious expenses as the cleaning of the crime scene, or property destroyed by a thief.

The proposed amendments would also provide victims with an optional form in the Criminal Code to assist them in calculating and describing their readily ascertainable losses. The courts would be allowed to accept this information in other formats, as approved by the court.

A court of law could, on its own initiative or at the prosecutor's request, adjourn the proceedings to give victims a chance either to indicate whether they are seeking restitution or to determine the loss or damage, as long as the adjournment does not hinder the proper administration of justice.

I can summarize in one word what will be gained from updating the restitution scheme: dignity. With this change, the victims' human dignity will be fully recognized. The scheme will more effectively recognize the harm done to victims and will help provide solutions.

One of the fundamental objectives of this bill is to give victims the voice they deserve in the criminal justice system. In the context of restitution, this would be achieved by permitting victims to speak to their readily ascertainable losses in a victim impact statement that is to be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender.

This bill also recognizes that the offender's financial means or inability to pay the restitution order must not by itself prevent a court from ordering a restitution order. This represents a codification of decisions of appellate courts and of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that the means of the offender must be considered along with other factors in determining the totality of the sentence.

The necessity for victims to receive reparation for their losses and damages was the foundation of the proposed reforms regarding the payment of restitution orders.

The proposed amendments would permit the court to either order that the full amount of the restitution order be paid on the day of sentencing or in a specified number of days following sentencing or in accordance with a payment schedule the court determined to be reasonable in the circumstances.

In addition to this approach, the court would provide that in cases of multiple victims who seek restitution, the court would specify the amount payable to each individual, and where applicable, the order of priority in which victims were to be paid. The offender's failure to pay restitution by the day specified in the order or the failure to make a periodic payment required under the order would allow the victim or victims to enter any amount that remains to be paid as a civil judgment in any court of Canada.

I believe that a carefully tailored restitution regime in criminal law would effectively ensure that offenders acknowledge the harm done, provide victims with effective financial reparations, and avoid lengthy civil proceedings.

Another important element of the bill is the proposed amendment relating to the victim surcharge. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on convicted offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected and retained by the provincial and territorial governments and is used to help fund the most important programs and services for victims in the province or territory where the crime occurred.

This money does not go directly to the victim. It is placed in a special fund in the province or territory. The fund, sometimes called a victim assistance fund, is used to provide services and assistance to victims of crime, such as information on the criminal justice system and court processes, referrals to counselling, court support for vulnerable persons, assistance in preparing victim impact statements, and compensation programs.

Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, came into force October 24, 2013. It amended the victim surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code to double the amount an offender must pay when sentenced and ensured that the surcharge is applied in all cases. Bill C-37 came into effect, and it has been reported that some courts are providing exceedingly long periods of time to pay the surcharge, some up to 60 years.

This bill proposes to clarify that courts must require offenders to pay the victim surcharge within the time established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province in which the surcharge is imposed. If no time has been established, the surcharge would be payable within a reasonable time after its imposition.

Judges will therefore have some flexibility to impose victim surcharges, which will have to be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

“Reasonable time” has been interpreted by the courts as a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the case and cannot be decided in the abstract. Reasonable time must allow the debtor to meet the demand. The criteria of “reasonable” would still preserve a certain level of judicial discretion in describing the timing of the payment of the surcharge, but would not allow the debt to extend into an absurd or unreasonable period. This discretion would still allow the judge to take into account the offender's financial and other relevant circumstances in establishing a reasonable time limit for the payment. This approach recognizes the fact that the test of reasonable is used throughout the Criminal Code and, although not defined, is well understood, interpreted, and applied by the courts.

By virtue of subsection 734.7(1) of the Criminal Code, courts continue to have discretion not to commit for imprisonment a person who by reason of poverty cannot pay a fine, even after a reasonable time has been allotted.

I wish to reiterate that the proposed amendments relating to restitution and to surcharges in this particular bill are very important in addressing the concerns expressed by many victims and in meeting the objective to give victims the voice and protection they deserve in the Canadian criminal justice system. I urge all members to join me in supporting the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The House resumed from May 27 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.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to rise as the NDP justice critic to address Bill C-587, introduced by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

He seized that opportunity when the member for Selkirk—Interlake, who initially introduced the bill, got promoted and could no longer present it. We congratulate him on his promotion. However, we need to revisit Bill C-587.

I am tempted to reread my improvised speech from the last time, because my view on this bill has not changed. It has some good points. Some might say the NDP should be satisfied, because it always calls for the continued exercise of judicial discretion, and that is in the bill.

Indeed, it is always a good idea to leave it up to the court to decide whether someone should be eligible for parole after 25 years, or only after 40 years. This judicial discretion is definitely an improvement on many other bills introduced by the Conservative government.

That said, one can read a bill and wonder whether it will achieve the goal stated by the member. During oral question period, the parliamentary secretary said that this legislation would greatly reassure victims. When we work on these issues, we always try to put the interests of the victims first.

However, because of the legal context, the laws that we rely on and the charters that we must abide by, we must ensure that our legislation will successfully meet the tough challenges that lie ahead.

The government should have learned some lessons from the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, including the one on the Senate, which it lost by a count of 8-0; the Summers decision on April 11 on pre-sentencing credit, which the government lost by 7-0; and the Khela decision on prisoner transfer, which it lost by a count of 8-0. I do not include the Nadon ruling, because no legal principle is involved in this case. Still, the government suffered a 6-1 defeat. It also lost 8-0 in the Whaling decision on early parole. Again, we ask the government to pay attention to existing laws.

When I rise in the House in my capacity as justice critic for the official opposition, I do not do so to irritate Canadians or my Conservative colleagues who are introducing bills. In fact, I have actually supported an impressive number of their bills. I have recommended that my caucus colleagues support certain government bills and even some private members' bills introduced by Conservative members.

In this case, the government would have victims believe that this bill will solve their problems. However, victims do not really have a problem with the sanctions. Let me make that clear right away: the problem with Bill C-587 does not have anything to do with the sentences per se.

Since we are talking about extremely serious crimes, such as abduction, sexual assault and murder, we are certainly not talking about minor offenders, such as people who rob convenience stores. We are talking about hardened criminals like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo. Everyone, including the victims, knows that these offenders are in jail for life. Is that clear enough? When they get a life sentence, that means they are in jail for life.

However, our legal system, our charter and our international conventions allow offenders to appear before the Parole Board of Canada.

The board will not free these people if they pose a risk. The public is not at risk just because an offender has been released. The problem—and the hon. member may be right about this— is that it is painful for families and victims to have to relive the unforgettable horror. Even if offenders cannot appear before the parole board for 40 years, victims will still be reliving the horror of their experience as though it happened yesterday. One does not just forget about these things overnight.

That being said, let us think about what would happen if the bill were to pass. The judge would ask the jury if it had any recommendations to make in the case of vicious murder.

I would just like to say, incidentally, that I am also concerned about the fact that these three crimes must all have been committed. A murder can be vicious even though the victim was not sexually assaulted or abducted. I think it is unfortunate that the focus is being placed on one type of offence when many other offences could easily fall into the same category.

Take the Bernardo case, for example, where the case was proven. I am talking about proving the case, but I would remind members that in the Bernardo case, they did not have to prove rape, kidnapping or anything else. The murders themselves were enough to result in a life sentence. Under this bill, all three will have to be proven. I already see the impact that this will have on trials under way and on what the Crown will have to prove. In my opinion, in an attempt to make life easier for families in terms of attending parole hearings, the member is unwittingly making things more difficult when they need not be.

None of this may happen because the judge could instead hand down a 25-year sentence. He may not feel comfortable with a longer sentence. We are already waiting for Supreme Court decisions to find out if sentences of more than 25 years—such as three consecutive sentences of 25 years, where the person is sentenced to 75 years in prison—are legal in our Canadian system under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are still some Supreme Court decisions to come. The government may be surprised once again, and that will affect all these cases.

Let us imagine that the jury recommends to the judge that there be no parole for 40 years. That means that there will be an appeal and the parties will go to court. Will that be considered unusual punishment under the charter? There are some concerns about this.

I asked the member the question earlier because, in my opinion, this provision was not included in Bill C-478, which was introduced by our colleague from Selkirk—Interlake. Bill C-32, introduced by the government, does contain provisions to make life easier for victims.

There are ways to make sure that victims do not suffer as they would if they had to go back before the parole board. There are some who do not want to go to the hearings, but there are some who need to go, for the sake of their sanity, to say their peace before the board. I fully respect that. However, I believe it would have been better to do that with Bill C-32. Amendments of this magnitude to the Criminal Code should not be made with a private member's bill, but with a government bill, to ensure there is at least the impression of coherence with this country's fundamental laws.

That is not the case with a private member's bill, whether or not the member is a backbencher. There is no requirement in that regard.

I have serious concerns about this bill, which unfortunately will not do what it claims for victims. It really would be preferable to bring this forward with Bill C-32 and to drop Bill C-587.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should have known that.

It would support that bill in the sense that it is just another step to recognizing victims' rights and to protecting victims from this type of pain, which they would have to endure, listening to parole hearing after parole hearing. It would complement the initiative by Bill C-32.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the member pay reference to the bill that she was talking to, Bill C-32, please?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, and I would like to ask him a brief question. Now that Bill C-587 has been introduced, and now that the government has introduced Bill C-32, has the member discovered specifically how Bill C-32 could affect his bill, Bill C-587?

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10. We supported it at second reading, but we had quite a number of concerns, particularly in terms of its compliance with the charter because it includes mandatory minimum penalties.

I am also concerned about the process that led to Bill C-10. The government did not consult the partners in the federation, namely the provinces, the territories and the first nations. We were therefore determined to carry out a thorough study in committee. That is what I hoped for.

The committee did a good job. It heard witnesses in various capacities talk about the scourge of contraband tobacco. I will have no trouble convincing everyone in the House that contraband tobacco is a scourge, period.

However, there might be a little hypocrisy around this issue in our society. Even as the government tries to control tobacco and fight contraband tobacco, it is raising taxes on tobacco and making a lot of money that way. That hypocrisy became entrenched over the years, and now it is complicating the issue. Add to that the ancestral rights of first nations peoples to manufacture tobacco, and the issue gets very murky.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had some good meetings. It heard from excellent witnesses, including chiefs of first nations. I did not hear a single first nations chief express support for contraband tobacco to the committee. Nevertheless, the chiefs were very realistic. They insisted on protecting their traditional rights to produce and grow tobacco as they have done historically within their territory.

That being said, they are also aware that contraband tobacco, which is often part of organized crime activity on their land, has the lure of easy money for their young people. It is a vicious circle because there is a great deal of poverty on first nations lands that tends to get ignored, and then we are surprised when the black market takes hold there. This does not help first nations chiefs to provide their people on their land with something worthwhile.

I have already done so in person, but since we have the time, I would like to publicly thank my NDP colleagues who served with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who may not get the chance to speak to the bill in the House. They did exceptional work. I particularly want to thank the NDP deputy justice critic, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi and the hon. member for Beaches—East York. They contributed a lot to this file through their personal experience in their own part of the country.

What is more, we proposed an amendment. I am still sad that the government did not see fit to approve the amendment that we proposed to respect R. v. Gladue. That decision calls on the courts, when sentencing, to consider the extenuating circumstances of the accused when the accused is from the first nations, especially considering that there are mandatory minimum sentences. That is the requirement that resulted from that decision, but according to lawyers at Justice Canada, Bill C-10 will take precedence over R. v. Gladue. We will see whether there are more appeals. I suspect there will be.

If one of the people arrested is a first nations member, it is very possible that the defence will make use of some of the arguments in the Gladue ruling. I think it would be wise to say that this did not trump the facts in the Gladue case.

True to form, the Conservatives are so terrified of adopting any amendment other than their own, and I find that very unfortunate. They may be rapped on the knuckles once again, as they have been in the last four or five major Supreme Court decisions. I feel like a mother who says “I told you so”, and I am a little tired of that. That is how I have felt for the past three years.

The opposition members are trying to do their job. I listened to the prayer recited by the Speaker at the beginning of the sitting. He asked Parliament to make good laws. I believe that is what we are trying to do both in the House and in committees.

Suffice it to say that the amendment was rejected. The mandatory minimum sentences will apply to repeat offenders, where a high volume of contraband tobacco is involved, and so my concerns about the sentences have been allayed. I still have no guarantee that the bill complies with our charters because the government does not see to be too worried about that. When we weigh out the two issues, public protection and contraband tobacco, which affects our children, we realize that this is extremely important.

The NDP has always taken the problem of contraband tobacco in Canada seriously, and Bill C-10 has not changed that.

I am going to digress for a moment regarding Bill C-10. When it was introduced in the House, we were told it was an absolute emergency, but it has been around for a long time now. If memory serves me correctly, the bill passed second reading in November. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we worked very diligently and quickly. Throughout the month of December, until the adjournment, we worked on this legislation. As soon as we came back after Christmas, in early February, we proceeded to clause by clause. What is intriguing is that the bill then fell into oblivion. We never heard about it again. Then, this week, I noticed we were going to debate Bill C-10. There are many numbers in my head, such as C-10, C-32 dealing with prostitution, C-587,C-590 and others. All these bills seem to deal with justice.

When I saw my name tied to Bill C-10, I wondered what the bill was about. It reminded me of the good old days when I was pleading before the court. We would prepare a case and arrive in court with witnesses. Unfortunately, for some very serious reason, the other side would ask for a postponement. We had prepared the case and met with witnesses and we were more than ready. We would return to our office, back at square one, and tell ourselves that we would wait for the next time. However, we sometimes had to wait a year or a year and a half and start all over again. Clients would sometime wonder why we were billing new hours. The answer was that we had to refresh our memory.

This is the impression I get with Bill C-10. I had to review the whole file because, in the meantime, we had debated several other justice bills and a number of issues that are now in the annals of the House. The government does not have to tell us this is urgent. The Conservatives seem to move into high gear at two very specific times: during the week preceding the holiday season and during the last two or three weeks before the summer recess. During these periods, we are incredibly productive.

I almost wish we could change the calendar so that it could be June all year long. Canadians across the country would be amazed at our productivity.

This week in the House, we debated Motion No. 10, which supposedly seeks to increase our work hours. It seems we are not working enough, but if that is the case, I am not sure why I am tired. In any event, I was listening to some of my colleagues, and their argument was that we had passed only nine bills.

What is fascinating is that about 15 bills will likely be passed in two weeks. One has to wonder if that means that we are being more productive or less democratic because we will have less time to speak to these bills and fewer people will have the opportunity to speak on each topic. I think the answer is obvious.

Bill C-10 is a good example. It has been sitting on someone's desk since February when it could have been passed quickly the week after it came back from committee. There were no formal or serious objections that would have prevented the bill from passing. This bill could have been passed by now.

These are important points to raise. I would never let anybody tell me that we are not working hard on these issues because we take them very seriously. Sometimes, we rise to speak to a bill at second reading to raise some of our concerns. There is no denying that we are concerned about this bill.

I know that the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco is made up of many people who benefit from tobacco sales. I was not born yesterday, and I see where their interests lie. In their testimony, some police forces also told us that they will need resources. This is an extremely important message that came out of the committee's examination of Bill C-10.

The first nations have their own to-do list for their territory. We need to stop making cuts to first nation police services. If Bill C-10 gives the police new tools by adding an offence to the Criminal Code that existed only under the Excise Tax Act, then from now on all police forces can begin dealing with contraband tobacco. However, we have to give them the resources they need. We need police officers on the front lines.

Some witnesses also told us that contraband was increasingly coming from countries other than Canada, for example, China. This is an issue for border services, and this agency will need resources. All we ever hear about on the news and here in the House is successive budget cuts being made to border services. How do we expect this agency to combat the large-scale smuggling that organized crime groups are conducting through well-organized networks?

This is not just about tobacco; it is also about arms and drug smuggling. It is all connected. The government is always a bit hypocritical, since it introduces bills and claims to want to fix everything, but it does not provide tools for the people on the ground so that they can do their jobs properly. I find that worrisome. Nevertheless, all of the witnesses we heard from in committee made the facts clear, regardless of their reasons.

For example, I know that the Canadian Convenience Stores Association wants us to put an end to contraband tobacco. When contraband cigarettes are available, no one buys cigarettes at the convenience store. The association does not want to put an end to tobacco use; it wants to put an end to illegal competition in its industry. The association is right. We must stop being hypocritical. If we decide that tobacco is a legal industry in Canada, even though we know that it kills, these stores should be able to happily sell it and make money legally.

That is why I really liked the question my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the parliamentary secretary. She asked him if there were ways other than Bill C-10 to eliminate the scourge of tobacco. She and I both know that it is not easy to quit smoking. She can share her personal experience with that. In my case, I have been chewing Nicorette since 1999. People in the committee had quite a laugh when I told them that. In December, I was proud to tell them that I had quit Nicorette, but unfortunately I have to admit to everyone that I have started up again. It must be the Conservatives' fault I guess, because either I chew Nicorette or I get even more aggressive than usual. That is what I thought: everyone is eager to recommend that I chew Nicorette. That is what I do. Maybe I will stop one day. My point is that it is a constant battle.

We tell kids not to smoke, but tobacco companies attract them with all kinds of products. I know that is why I started smoking when I was young. It was cool. We thought we were so smart. Had I known how bloody hard it would be to quit 30 or 40 years later, maybe I would never have started. Young people know that now.

There are other ways, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said. There has to be a concerted public health effort, not just changes to the Criminal Code. There has to be a concerted effort to raise people's awareness that this product kills. That is what the warnings on cigarette packs say: this stuff kills, causes all sorts of problems and places a heavy burden on our health system. We have to do everything in our power to bring tobacco use rates down as quickly as possible.

We will tackle the issue of contraband tobacco immediately. I hope that it will help, but I am not convinced that it is the silver bullet or that it will solve every problem. I want to reiterate that for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. This bill will come into force on a date to be fixed by order in council. That is better than when we are sometimes told that the bill will come into force within 30 days of the bill being passed, which means that it applies immediately. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that the government use the time before the bill comes into force to sit down and talk with the first nations that have a considerable number of issues with and concerns about the bill. It is not that they support contraband tobacco. However, as Gina Deer, Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, said:

Bill C-10 proposes an infringement on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights pertaining to the production, transportation, sale, and regulation of tobacco products.

If that is how Chief Deer perceives Bill C-10, a government representative needs to sit down with the chiefs to correct that perception. I think that the government's vision has to be explained, and first nations and the government need to discuss it as equals. The government did not have the decency to do that before it introduced the bill.

We are supporting this bill, even with its flaws. I am still waiting for the Conservatives to introduce a perfect bill. I do not think it is going to happen any time soon. That said, the committee did a fine job. I would like to thank my committee colleagues for their work, and I would also like to thank the witnesses who came to enlighten us on this subject, which is not always straightforward.

I appreciate the work being done by police, in particular. They do not have an easy job. As I said earlier, when we talk about contraband tobacco, the discussion often turns to other types of contraband or illegal activities such as organized crime and dangerous individuals. Police officers are putting their lives in danger every day. We must appreciate their work, but we also need to give them the tools and means to do their job. They have all been critical of that.

That also includes police forces in first nations territories, the aboriginal police who do this work and whose programs have been eliminated by the government. At some point you have to put your money where your mouth is. If the government wants to take action, it must provide the tools.

Bill C-10 is not very long and everyone should read it. For those who are worried about mandatory minimum sentences, they apply to repeat offenders and cases involving large quantities of contraband tobacco, as I was saying.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Victims Bill of Rights

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

I have the honour of adding my voice to those of my many colleagues today with regard to Bill C-32, introduced by the government opposite, to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights.

As far as this Canadian victims bill of rights is concerned, I would like to mention that the NDP has always supported victims rights. We want to support victims of crime in a tangible way and we must ensure that this charter will not be just a statement in principle that will never be implemented. The NDP sincerely believes that victims should have access to support and assistance programs throughout the legal process.

I mentioned at the start that we will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, on this side of the House, we are not prepared to give the Conservatives a blank cheque. The NDP members have promised to thoroughly study this Canadian victims bill of rights. We want to carefully study it to ensure that it brings about real improvements for victims who have been calling for this bill of rights for many years. We want to give careful consideration to every clause of this bill and we will consult experts about every element of this bill.

I must also mention the incredible work done in committee by my colleagues from Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île, as well as their serious approach to studying Bill C-32 and many other bills brought before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There are a number of points that I would like to address in the rest of my speech, including the limitations of the charter and some quotes from many victims advocacy groups in Canada. I will come back to that later.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I will use the term “victim” in my speech to mean the person against whom a crime has been directly committed as well as to designate those close to the victim who have also suffered and who often continue to suffer gravely as a result of the criminal act.

This bill is a step in the right direction. The Liberals support the bill.

Among other things, Bill C-32 would provide victims with an important right to information. For example, the bill would give victims the right to request information about a criminal case, including information about an offender's release date and a photo of the offender showing what he or she looks like after release. It would also allow victims to obtain a copy of a bail or probation order. This right to information is an important right from a victim's point of view.

There is general agreement that the bill does not go far enough. As a case in point, Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, has said, “...the bill fails to fully address the breadth and depth of victims' needs and concerns”.

If I may digress slightly from the content of the bill, I would like to say that victims' rights should not be used as a political wedge. I find there has been a regrettable tendency by the government to use a crime and punishment agenda as a partisan wedge, a way of separating the good guys who care from the others who purportedly do not, all for the purpose of political gain. The issue of victims' rights should not be transformed into a competition about which political party is more compassionate toward victims. I do not believe anyone in this House lacks compassion for victims. Some of us have likely been victims of crimes ourselves, from victims of small theft to more serious crimes that may have involved varying degrees of physical assault and harm, or we know people, loved ones, neighbours, or friends, who have been victims.

No one is interested in coddling criminals. In matters of law, however, the Liberals want to ensure that the key principles we as a society value and have fought hard to establish are respected, not only because those principles, like the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the need to respect charter rights in investigations and sentencing, have proved to be immensely useful in avoiding miscarriages of justice but also because to ignore those principles means threatening the very goal of upholding an effective justice system that protects society and punishes those who have transgressed against others.

Laws that do not respect constitutional principles eventually are invalidated by the courts. This leaves a dangerous void that is of no use to anyone.

The interests of victims have been an integral part of human justice from the earliest times. I know the government often likes to say that the justice system ignores victims and that victims are not considered in any way, shape, or form in the justice system. They kind of impugn the justice system, which I think is an unhealthy attitude. That seems to be the impression that is often created when one listens to pronouncements from the government. However, the idea of restitution for victims of crime is an age-old concept. The Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon, the old Roman laws of the Twelve Tables, and the Old Testament all codified concepts of restitution to compensate those wronged by lawbreakers.

In more modern times, two parallel systems have evolved, a criminal court system and a civil court system, as a way of simultaneously ensuring that defendants have a fair trial that reaches a truthful conclusion about guilt or innocence and that victims are properly compensated for the wrong that has been caused them.

The criminal court process is centred on the accused, on attempting to prove a person's guilt on the one hand and ensuring that the guilt has not been wrongly attributed on the other. The victim has had an increasing role in the criminal justice process but is admittedly not the centre of it.

However, the victim is very much at the centre of the civil proceedings process when he or she seeks damages for the harm that he or she has suffered. The main difference between the two systems, of course, is that the burden of proof is higher in criminal court. It is thus possible for someone to be acquitted in criminal court but to be found guilty in a civil case and consequently be forced to pay damages to the victim even though criminal guilt was not found.

What remains to be seen in reference to the victims bill of rights is whether it makes either court process any more responsive to the needs of victims in any real way or alternatively whether it merely tinkers with one or both. Essentially, what we are looking at is more in the nature of a placebo bill.

The justice minister says he is putting victims at the heart of the justice system, but is he really? Again, the current victims rights ombudsman thinks not, while the former victims rights ombudsman gave the bill a D grade when it was released. Or has the minister merely raised victims' expectations to a level that will lead to disappointment and frustration? According to Dr. Lori Triano-Antidormi, a psychologist who works with victims and their families and a victim herself who lost a loved one to a terrible crime, the government is creating false hopes.

Earlier in this debate, my esteemed colleague from Mount Royal outlined steps Liberals have taken to help victims. For example, the Martin government facilitated the testimony of child victims and other vulnerable witnesses by providing for the more widespread use of testimonial aids and support persons. That government also enhanced the national DNA databank by authorizing judges to order DNA samples from those convicted of a number of serious crimes.

A key concern for victims of crime surrounds plea bargains. I am sure everyone here is aware of that. Many victims are deeply frustrated when a plea bargain allows an accused who has done great harm to plead guilty to a lesser charge. In one case I read about, a plea bargain was arranged for someone who had killed an individual's son. However, the charge was reduced from second degree murder to manslaughter, resulting in a lesser sentence. The mother of the victim says she could not abide by the plea bargain because it meant that the man who killed her son would not truly be considered a murderer in the eyes of the community. He would in effect be viewed as someone who got caught up in some unfortunate chaotic situation and killed without intent to do so. When she was told of the plea bargain, the mother of the victim said:

I want you to let him go then. He's a murderer. Let the murderer go. Don't charge him with manslaughter because his whole life is going to be, “Oh, you poor guy, you were put in a position where you had to take a man's life.” I would rather him be out walking the street than put in jail for manslaughter.

This quote shows the extent of this woman's anger and bitterness. What added to the bitterness, the insult to injury, was the fact that the judge was never told of her opposition to the plea bargain. If he had, she may have found some small but transformative comfort in the fact that she had had her say.

A different case illustrates how giving victims the opportunity to express themselves over a plea bargain can help them in the difficult healing process, even if at the end of the day they do not succeed in changing a judge's ultimate decision.

In a case in Manitoba, the fiancée of a man who had been stomped to death by a group of teenagers at an outdoor festival was given the opportunity to express her opposition to the plea bargain. This had a profound positive long-term impact on the woman's healing process. The fiancée was obviously shattered by the judge's decision to accept the plea bargain, but she had been able to express her devastating disappointment to the prosecutor who communicated it to the judge.

To quote the judge:

The Crown said very honestly, 'The victim is not happy; she would wish you not go along with it,'....

When court was over, I walked over to her—I was in my robes—and we shared a tear together. About two months later, I got a letter.... It said that even though she...still did not agree with it, she said...what had happened in court had changed her life around. She had gone back to school and was now helping...victims, and wanted to thank me.

We obviously cannot give victims a veto over plea bargains or other decisions in criminal court cases. However, this bill would not even allow victims to have a say. It would merely give them the right to be informed of a plea bargain, and then only if they ask.

In contrast, the U.S. Crime Victims' Rights Act gives victims the right to address every public proceeding, including those relating to pleas. It gives victims standing in court, allowing them to hire lawyers to represent them. According to one expert, victims in the U.S. express greater satisfaction with the justice system when they feel they have been heard, something borne out by the Manitoba example I just referenced.

Bill C-32 also addresses, or attempts to address, the matter of restitution. However, again, the advertised message from the government does not quite match the facts. The bill would allow victims to ask the courts to consider imposing a restitution order against the offender, where financial losses are easy to calculate. The bill would leave it to victims to enforce restitution orders against wrongdoers.

In any event, what we know is that often, when restitution is demanded and granted, the offender is not in a position to pay. No doubt that creates a certain level of frustration and disappointment in the system on behalf of the victims.

The bill is a step in the right direction. One has to wonder if it could not have been a bit bolder in terms of helping victims. I am sure there will be some very good and interesting discussion around issues such as those I have raised, when the bill goes to committee.