Bill C-32 (Historical)

Victims Bill of Rights Act

An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts

This enactment enacts the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which specifies that victims of crime have the following rights:
(a) the right to information about the criminal justice system, the programs and services that are available to victims of crime and the complaint procedures that are available to them when their rights have been infringed or denied;
(b) the right to information about the status of the investigation and the criminal proceedings, as well as information about reviews while the offender is subject to the corrections process, or about hearings after the accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit to stand trial, and information about the decisions made at those reviews and hearings;
(c) the right to have their security and privacy considered by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system;
(d) the right to protection from intimidation and retaliation;
(e) the right to request testimonial aids;
(f) the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by authorities in the criminal justice system that affect the victim’s rights under this Act and to have those views considered;
(g) the right to present a victim impact statement and to have it considered;
(h) the right to have the courts consider making, in all cases, a restitution order against the offender; and
(i) the right to have a restitution order entered as a civil court judgment that is enforceable against the offender if the amount owing under the restitution order is not paid.
The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also specifies
(a) the periods during which the rights apply;
(b) the individuals who may exercise the rights;
(c) the complaint mechanism for victims and the requirements for federal departments to create complaint mechanisms; and
(d) how the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is to be interpreted.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) align the definition of “victim” with the definition of “victim” in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights;
(b) protect the privacy and security interests of complainants and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences and ensure that they are informed of their right to be represented by legal counsel;
(c) broaden the conduct to which the offence of intimidation of justice system participants applies;
(d) expand the list of factors that a court may take into consideration when determining whether an exclusion order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice;
(e) make testimonial aids more accessible to vulnerable witnesses;
(f) enable witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;
(g) make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory on application;
(h) provide that an order for judicial interim release must indicate that the safety and security of every victim was taken into consideration;
(i) require the court to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor in certain circumstances;
(j) add victim impact statement forms to assist victims to convey their views at sentencing proceedings and at hearings held by Review Boards;
(k) provide that the acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims and to the community is a sentencing objective;
(l) clarify the provisions relating to victim impact statements;
(m) allow for community impact statements to be considered for all offences;
(n) provide that victims may request a copy of a judicial interim release order, probation order or a conditional sentence order;
(o) specify that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed;
(p) provide a form for requesting a restitution order; and
(q) provide that courts must consider the making of a restitution order in all cases, and that, in multiple victim cases, a restitution order may specify the amounts owed to each victim and designate the priority of payment among the victims.
The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to provide that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused. It also amends that Act to add a new subsection to govern the questioning of witnesses over the age of 14 years in certain circumstances.
This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to
(a) align the definition of “victim” with the definition of “victim” in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights;
(b) permit victims to have access to information about the offender’s progress in relation to the offender’s correctional plan;
(c) permit victims to be shown a current photograph of the offender at the time of the offender’s conditional release or the expiration of the offender’s sentence;
(d) permit the disclosure of information to victims concerning an offender’s deportation before the expiration of the offender’s sentence;
(e) permit the disclosure to victims of an offender’s release date, destination and conditions of release, unless the disclosure would have a negative impact on public safety;
(f) allow victims to designate a representative to receive information under the Act and to waive their right to information under the Act;
(g) require that the Correctional Service of Canada inform victims about its victim-offender mediation services;
(h) permit victims who do not attend a parole hearing to listen to an audio recording of the hearing;
(i) provide for the provision to victims of decisions of the Parole Board of Canada regarding the offender; and
(j) require, when victims have provided a statement describing the harm, property damage or loss suffered by them as the result of the commission of an offence, that the Parole Board of Canada impose victim non-contact or geographic restrictions as conditions of release, where reasonable and necessary, to protect the victims in relation to an offender who is the subject of a long-term supervision order.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the NDP's justice critic, for her professionalism and diligence in debating the bills introduced by the Conservatives.

I also thank her for pointing out the Conservatives' misleading statements. They claim to stand up for victims, but in reality this bill is nothing but an empty shell. They will not compensate victims. They have no plan for compensating victims. They are off-loading that burden onto the provinces.

Could my colleague speak more to the fact that the Conservatives are washing their hands of this and off-loading the burden onto the provinces?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I could talk about that for 25 minutes.

The provinces will have to deal with the administration of justice, which is their responsibility. The content—meaning crime and justice—is our responsibility. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. I would say that is a big responsibility. We draft the laws, and they have to take action based on what we draft and decide. This is often done without much consultation, with all due respect to my colleagues opposite, who say that they consult when they hold one or two meetings a year with federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers. Often, this process is very superficial.

The Conservatives say that they are working on something. Their idea of consultation is limited to informing people of what will be passed. They say that they have a majority so they will not accept any amendments, that they already know where they are going and that this is how things will be. Then they explain what that means.

We are running out of time. It would have been great to have more time to debate this issue and to talk about different aspects of the bill. I did not get a chance to talk about the part that deals with the complaints of victims who are not happy with how certain things work. Once again, it is a voluntary system that is not clear at the provincial level. It could create some problems and could get bogged down.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32. It is a bill that I suspect will receive unanimous support of the House of Commons, and there should be no one surprised in regard to that. Legislators as a whole, whether at the national level or at the provincial level, truly want to do whatever is possible from a legislative perspective and outside of legislative perspectives to ensure that we can bring more justice and express more sympathy and so forth to victims of crime.

The right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution are rights that we hear a great deal about whenever we talk about victims. I would like to add some thoughts dealing with the legislation and, if time permits, to cite some concerns I have specifically with respect to Winnipeg North in regard to gang activities, which are not unique to Winnipeg North. Gang activities occur in many other municipalities and areas across the country, and there is an important role that the government needs to play in dealing with that issue.

It is worthy of note that the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-32, and that should come as no surprise. We have worked with other political parties in the past in recognizing the importance of victims and in wanting to make sure we do whatever possible in having a legislative agenda to deal with the issue.

Even though the government talks a great deal about being the great defender of victims and victims' rights, if we get down to the details, we find that the government has really not done all that well and that there is more it could have done. Because of its general attitude in bringing forward legislation, we could have been able to accomplish a whole lot more.

I say that because in 1988, had the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice actually endorsed the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. That was back in an era of Progressive Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. They demonstrated the need to be able to work in co-operation with different stakeholders, and in particular with the different levels of government.

In 2003, after a considerable amount of discussion had taken place among federal officials, provincial officials, and other stakeholders, the original statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime was changed and modified, and again I emphasize that it was through working with other jurisdictions that a great deal was accomplished. Ultimately it was to promote fair treatment of victims and to have that reflected in federal, provincial, and territorial laws, policies, and procedures. That was done because the different entities were working together.

I suspect that a greater sense of agreement and co-operation among the different levels helped put the necessary funding and resources in place to ensure that it was possible not only to talk about changes but to act on those changes. I will refer later in my comments to the resources.

A reference in the preamble to the 2014 victims bill of rights notes that some very basic principles were identified back in 2003. They were intended to be promoted so that there would be fair treatment for victims. As I said, those would then be reflected through laws, policies, and procedures.

I would like to list all eight of them: first, victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect; second, the privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible; third, all reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims; fourth, the safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation; fifth, information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim's role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes; sixth, victims should be given information, in accordance with the prevailing laws, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress, and final outcome of the proceedings; and the status of the offender in the correctional system; seventh, information should be provided to the victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation; and eighth, the views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with the prevailing law, policies and procedures.

I was here when the minister introduced the legislation. He indicated at that point what a wonderful hallmark it would be to pass Bill C-32. There is no doubt that Bill C-32 is a step forward, as we acknowledge, and that is why we support the legislation. However, it does not deserve the type of applause the Minister of Justice has envisioned for it. There are many shortcomings in the legislation.

Since the Conservatives formed government in 2006, not much legislation has materialized putting victims first, despite what we hear on a weekly basis in the House of Commons. In other words, there is vast room for improvement. One might say that as a member of the Liberal Party, it is easy for me to make that statement, but let me refer to some recommendations in the recent report by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime on the victims bill of rights legislation based on discussions with stakeholders at that office's April 13 forum.

To quote federal ombudsman Sue O'Sullivan from May 2014, she stated in reference to the bill:

...the Bill fails to fully address the breadth and depth of victims’ needs and concerns. As the Bill moves through the Parliamentary process, I will be pushing for further change to strengthen the Bill and I encourage all Canadians to do the same.

Of the nearly 30 recommendations the ombudsman made to the Government of Canada for inclusion in its bill, only 4 have been fully addressed, and another 10 have only been partly addressed, which really suggests that there is a great deal of room for improvement.

I looked at the report by that office and it is fairly extensive. If members look at the nine recommendations made for the victims bill of rights, each of them has specifics. Let me provide a couple of examples.

The first recommendation talks about the victims bill of rights being enforceable and usable. It states:

Critical to have the rights of victims enshrined in law and enforceable, accessible for victims.

The concept of justice expanded from an exclusive focus on convicting individuals of crimes to include a full response to the needs of victims; justice is seen to be done when the offender is held accountable and the victim restored to the maximum extent possible.

Should include accessible knowledge through data collection and dissemination (with privacy considerations) to enable the community to monitor and evaluate equality, progress and effectiveness.

In this report, there are nine recommendations. I just made reference to one of them, which consists of a series of suggestions. Each recommendation, in fact, has a series of suggestions. There is a lot in here, including about voice and standing; the right to information, financial protection and support, psychological support and resources; limiting opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or to re-offend; equitable, respectful, and individualized treatment; the inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; and integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country. These are all points in which there are actionable points that follow each one of the eight recommendations that I just listed. The point is that there is so much more that we could have done to improve the legislation.

The Liberal Party critic, the member for Charlottetown, has done a phenomenal job in making sure that our party's perspective is espoused and talked about. He has represented us exceptionally well at the committee stage and, in fact, made numerous attempts to make changes or bring forward amendments to the legislation.

I would like to quote some of the thoughts expressed by the member for Charlottetown with regard to one specific presentation that he heard in committee. This particular individual was Maureen Basnicki, a Canadian whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks. At committee, she explained that she had experienced difficulty in accessing victims services because her husband was murdered by a terrorist outside of the country. She urged us to extend any lawfully available domestic rights to Canadian victims of crime that occur outside of Canada.

I would like to share some her testimony with the chamber. She stated:

...perpetrators of crimes are still demanding their rights as Canadian citizens when they've been successfully prosecuted for crimes outside the country, and I want to bring balance to this. This is not a new step. It's new for Canadians, perhaps, but other countries do this, many other countries. Most other countries do.

After listening to Ms. Basnicki, the member for Charlottetown, on behalf of the Liberal Party, introduced an amendment to capture her unfairly overlooked constituency, even though reference was made to it in the report. The Liberal critic suggested granting domestically available victims benefits to Canadians who have experienced serious personal injury crimes outside of the country or whose family members have been murdered outside the country.

What do members think happened at committee? A wonderful, valuable amendment, something that was referenced in other forms by different stakeholders, was voted down by the Conservatives for apparently no good reason, other than that the Liberal Party had brought forward the amendment, perhaps.

The member for Charlottetown introduced other amendments. Some of those amendments were based on the Canadian Bar Association's recommendations on Bill C-32.

One of the interesting ones that received a great deal of discussion was with regard to plea deals and what happens when there is an admission of guilt compared to deals where there are attempts to come up with a plea bargain. There was some clarity introduced in making sure that the system would be more efficient and fairer to victims. Again, the government rejected them.

There were many other amendments brought forward, including allowing victims of crime in Canada to file victim impact statements and to make restitution claims without being present in Canada, so as to avoid the expense of having to return here. Another was returning court discretion on the timing of restitution payments, since restitution orders may interfere with the victims' enforcement of civil orders. There was also one preserving court discretion to disallow a community impact statement if someone unjustifiably purported to speak on behalf of a community. There were more amendments as well.

However, the government is so partisan at committee that even if there is a legitimate amendment that would improve the legislation, it has a standard default position in response. If it is not a Conservative amendment, the government will not vote in favour it. As a result, we are failing to recognize important amendments that would make the legislation that much better.

This is where I believe the government needs to be held to task. Yes, it is passing legislation. As I said, we will support this legislation, but we must indicate to Canadians' that the government consistently fails to recognize worthy amendments that would improve legislation. As a result, it is Canadians who are paying the price because of the Conservatives' attitude when it comes to passing legislation in the House of Commons and their complete disregard of amendments that would improve legislation.

At committee, it was interesting. This is something else that the member for Charlottetown wanted to make reference to. The Grand Chief asked us to alter Bill C-32 to “better reflect the unique circumstances and needs of first nations persons who are victims of crime”. In short, he asked us to extend the principle of the Supreme Court's Gladue decision, which extends special historic consideration to aboriginal offenders' and victims' side of the question. The Grand Chief recommended, and we did introduce, amendments to address that issue, at least in part. Again, the Conservatives turned them down.

There were concerns regarding restorative justice, and if time permits, I will take the opportunity to deal with that toward the end of my comments.

The bottom line is that the government has been afforded the opportunity—are you telling me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Daryl Kramp), Bruce Stanton]

You have five seconds.

[Lamoureux]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, someone will ask me a question. I was hoping to be able to go on the record with some thoughts on gang activity, but I am thankful for the opportunity to have been able to say at least a few words on the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech. I especially appreciated his pointing out that the Conservative government does not give any consideration to the work done in committee, especially since getting its majority.

The work done by committees, which are part of our parliamentary and democratic institutions, is being rather perverted by the government. As the member clearly explained, based on his extensive experience, committees help improve bills by amending them.

As my colleague, the justice critic, mentioned, the NDP moved several amendments to this bill in order to add real value.

I would like to hear more from the member about committee work. Whether with this bill or the many others that have amended the Criminal Code, not recognizing the work of committees will have negative consequences for Canada's future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had more of a co-operative attitude going into the committee, we could improve the quality of the legislation. All of us would benefit if occurred.

Let us take a look at the issue of the rights of victims. I made reference to Brian Mulroney whose government worked with the provinces to ultimately develop our first basic principles of justice for victims. Then Jean Chrétien made modifications to it, and I quoted those rights.

I did not have time to make reference to former prime minister Paul Martin or the member for Mount Royal, who took initiative and enhanced the rights of victims.

Whether it was any level of those changes that were brought in, there was a high sense of co-operation with the different levels of government. There was a great deal more effort in taking into consideration what opposition members had to say.

Under other administrations, amendments that were brought forward to committee, whether they were Liberal, or New Democrat or Progressive Conservative amendments, years back, they were not only allowed to be debated, but a good number of them were passed. Why? Because it was in the best interest of the legislation being debated.

The current majority government has forgotten that principle. It has that natural default position of when an amendment is not Conservative, it resists and votes against it. That is to the detriment of good legislation.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to comment on the question posed by my colleague from LaSalle—Émard.

In previous parliaments, it was normal for the government, even one with a majority, to accept a number of amendments proposed in committee. Up to two-thirds of the amendments put forward in committee were accepted by previous governments.

However, in the 41st Parliament, regretfully, none of the amendments moved by opposition parties have been accepted. That is very unfortunate.

If my colleague has any concluding remarks related to gangs or any other concluding remarks, I would like to hear them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there was so much that I wanted to say on this legislation, but there is a personal side to this for me in the sense of the rights of victims.

There is so much more a government can do to prevent victims in the first place. On gang activity, far too many young people are engaged in those activities. If the government were to invest more in activities in which young people could get engaged in to prevent them from getting involved in gangs, we could prevent people from becoming victims in the future.

I would like to see the government have a more caring attitude in providing the alternative programming or supporting and working with the different levels of government to create and generate the activities that would help our young people and keep them out of gangs.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that on such an important issue that transcends all political spectrum that we would get caught up in a bashing kind of rhetoric. I understand the hon. member opposite has certain passions about doing that. The reality is that it takes away from the integrity of what we are endeavouring to do, and also the importance of the bill in this context.

I have been on this page for a good long time through various governments. I can remember the days of the Liberal governments when, as a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, we pleaded for adjustments to legislation to better deal with things like victims issues, and for the most part, we were discounted, so this is not a political issue. We need to get our collective act together and start thinking about why we are here and what we are here to do.

Does the hon. member have any recollection of the days of Paul Martin, then prime minister, when the police pleaded for these kinds of issues and we were totally discounted?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, let me address the point the member raised at the beginning. My choice would be to have a government go to the committee stage of a bill with an open mind and be receptive to amendments proposed by opposition members.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot go to committee and reject everything opposition members have to say in bringing forward amendments and voting against all of them, as this majority government consistently has, then when the bill comes forward for third reading, say that the member is too political.

We support the legislation because we believe it is a step in the right direction, but it could have been better legislation had the government been more receptive to listening and working in a co-operative more apolitical fashion at committee stage.

In regard to the listening, I can assure the member that whether it is meeting with premiers, mayors and other organizations and stakeholders, I do not know of another prime minister outside of Paul Martin who was outreaching, working and trying to build consensus.

In his very short period of time, look at what he was able to accomplish, whether it was the Kelowna accord or many other deals with our first nations, or child care. There was a litany of things in a very short time span such as the green agreement, the health care accord. We have not seen this type of consultation. It does not necessarily mean everyone gets everything, but at least the genuine attempt for outreach and consultation was done exceptionally well. I am very proud of the former prime ministers Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien on these issues.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I cannot help but respond to the speech given by the Associate Minister of National Defence. He is claiming that the Conservatives suggested those ideas when Paul Martin's government was in office. However, we then had eight years of inaction before we finally started this debate, which, unfortunately, has been subject to time allocation. That is truly shameful.

My colleague was quite right in pointing out the fact that our constructive proposals are all too easily rejected. I would like him to comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I made reference in my comments to Sue O'Sullivan, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. That captures a number of thoughts to which the member makes reference.

A lot more can be done. However, it is not fair for the Conservatives to trumpet all the time that they are the great defenders of victims rights, because their actions speak differently.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

These rights fall into four main areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four amendments are proposed to the third party records regime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we said that we would support the bill and we will definitely do so at this stage because the bill is still a good first step.

However, I would like to share one of our concerns. What about the families of victims who have died? Bill C-32 does not contain any provisions on helping families of victims to heal. Sometimes life is never really the same after such an incident occurs. Some people are never able to return to work. Some develop mental health problems and have difficulty reintegrating into society.

There is nothing in Bill C-32 in this regard. Even before this bill was introduced, cuts had been made to key programs for victims, particularly in the area of rehabilitation and mental health.

Why is there nothing in Bill C-32 about helping the victims' families and loved ones heal and readjust to life and society?