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.
