Bill C-32 (Historical)

Victims Bill of Rights Act

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting back to order, pursuant to order of reference of Friday June 20, 2014, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and amend certain acts.

As you know, ladies and gentlemen, we were doing clause-by-clause consideration. We got to clause 30 before we finished, I think.

While we wait for our colleagues to reappear, even though Ms. May is not here, she has the majority of the amendments that are left, in fact, not quite all of them, but almost all of them. They are still deemed moved, so we still have to vote on them. If somebody on the committee wants them, you can still vote for them.

The question was asked of me with regard to the addition of privacy, which was done in clause 2. There was discussion about the French wording, was there not?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Minister.

I want to start by joining Madame Boivin in thanking Justice LeBel for his great years of service to our country and to our justice system. I also want to let you know that as a member of the practising bar a few years ago, I was familiar with Madame Côté, as I think all members of the bar in Canada were. The members of the bar have the highest regard for her. She was considered one of the finest trial lawyers in Canada. I think it's just a tremendous appointment. I congratulate you on that appointment.

I want to refer to some of the things you highlighted in your opening remarks today. You mentioned the Canadian victims bill of rights, and you'll know that the committee has been studying Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights. We just concluded our review and started our clause-by-clause review on Tuesday. I can tell you that in my riding, in Mississauga, for many years people have questioned their faith in the justice system. They were concerned that victims were treated as just another witness in the process and that they were often not informed about the investigative process, about the prosecution, about court dates, about plea bargains, and all the various procedures in a process that affected them greatly, because they were the people who were injured in the event that led to the process.

I wonder if you could tell us what you've been hearing from victims with regard to Canada's criminal justice system. How do you feel the victims bill of rights will change the status quo within the justice system?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to call this meeting to order. We are the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 54. As orders of the day, we are going to deal with Bill C-32, and we are going to do the clause-by-clause study.

We usually do committee business at the end, but we're going to do it first. We're going to distribute it. Just so you know, there is a new version of the subcommittee on agenda that's coming up, because we had a request at that committee for an attempt to get the minister to come earlier than December 4. I will profusely thank the minister, as he rearranged his schedule, and he is actually coming on Thursday. We have a new report that's out, so committee business on Thursday, we'll be dealing with supplementary estimates (B), and we'll have the minister for the first hour and departmental officials for the second hour. We've invited the departmental officials whose estimates are affected.

Depending on what we do today, if we get through everything today, we'll be done with the bill today, but if clause-by-clause needs to be extended, we will do that the following Tuesday. We will also do Bill S-221, which is a private member's bill dealing with public transit operators. Based on the discussions that I've had, my understanding is that we'll have the sponsor of the bill from the Senate and from the House here. If you have any suggestions for witnesses, let us know. It was unanimous in the House, so I think just a discussion with them is likely all we need. Then we'll go back to clause-by-clause study on Bill C-32 if we're not done.

On the Thursday we'll start a review of Bill S-2 and we'll just continue on with Bill S-2 until we're done with it. Then we'll see what happens.

Is somebody willing to move that? It's so moved.

(Motion agreed to)

We're going to go now to a motion coming from the government side on clause 2. It's at the beginning, so I need to wait for it. We're just getting it photocopied. I think it's on your desks already, but the mover of the motion doesn't have a copy of it.

Today, as per the order of reference of June 20 on Bill C-32, we are going to do the clause-by-clause study on the victims bill of rights. We are joined here today by witnesses from both the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. They are here only to answer questions that come up on any specific clause.

As you know, the short title is postponed until the end, so as chair I will call clause 2.

(On clause 2—Enactment of Act)

Mr. Goguen, your hand is up, and you'd like to propose something.

[Angela Connidis, Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Public Safety Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, good morning.

Kimberly Lavoie and I are very pleased to be here today to talk about the programs and initiatives that Public Safety Canada has developed to build safer communities and improve the lives of women and girls.

I will briefly outline the department's initiatives and will then give you more information on a promising practice implemented through the Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls.

Women and girls live in families and communities and our work at the Department of Public Safety focuses on increasing community safety and ensuring that these are safe environments for them. These initiatives fall into four main areas: crime prevention; supporting victims of crime; combatting human trafficking, sexual exploitation and abuse; and developing aboriginal community safety plans.

With respect to crime prevention, Public Safety's public national crime prevention strategy provides time-limited funding to communities and organizations to implement and evaluate crime prevention interventions that have proven successful in other jurisdictions. They are focused on four main priority areas: first, children, youth, and young adults who are at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system; second, communities that are experiencing high-priority crime issues such as drugs, gangs, weapon-related crime, hate crime and bullying; third, high-risk offenders reintegrating into communities; and finally, aboriginal communities.

In fiscal year 2013-14, the national crime prevention strategy funded 101 projects through a number of different funds. An example of a successful crime prevention intervention supported by Public Safety is the program Strengthening the Spirit: Building a comprehensive response to family violence in aboriginal communities. The program targeted aboriginal families at high risk of violent behaviour from three first nation communities surrounding the city of Calgary. Its objective was to reduce the incidence of domestic violence in families, reduce the risk of violence for children, and support the healing and wellness of families. A total of 34 treatment groups were held and a majority of participants were women. Among the 47% of participants who fully completed the program, there was a 6% self-reported rate of reoffending whereas the rate for those who did not complete the program was 34%. The total cost to implement the program was approximately $700,000 and 71% of that was funded by the national crime prevention strategy. This program continues to run in all of the sites in which it was piloted.

With respect to supporting victims, Public Safety Canada houses the national office for victims, a central resource that offers information and referrals to victims who interact with the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. It also provides input on policy and legislative initiatives, education about victims' issues for members of the criminal justice system, and networking and support to victims in their interactions with the criminal justice system.

As well, the Minister of Public Safety co-sponsored with the Minister of Justice the Canadian victims bill of rights, which will enshrine the right of victims to information about the offender, protection from the offender, participation in the criminal justice process including during court and parole hearings, and restitution. It has also created the remedial process for breaches of these rights. This legislation is intended to assist all victims of crime and provide them with a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

With respect to human trafficking, in June 2012, the Minister of Public Safety launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking. This action plan has a four pillar approach that consolidates efforts by focusing on the four Ps.

First is the prevention of trafficking by enhancing training of our police, border agents, and other front-line workers so that they recognize the signs of human trafficking, and by raising awareness among Canadians and then working with communities to identify people and places most at risk.

It also offers protection and assistance to victims of human trafficking by increasing financial support for victims' services and identifying and protecting domestic and foreign nationals in Canada who are vulnerable to trafficking, including females aged 15 to 21.

It helps in the prosecution of offenders by strengthening the laws within our criminal justice system, providing specialized training and education for prosecutors and law enforcement, and improving intelligence collection and collaboration. To help achieve this, the government launched a law enforcement team to conduct human trafficking investigations.

Finally, it works in partnership with stakeholders to build on existing policies and tools, to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach, and to promote strong research and better information sharing to improve our methods of collecting, tracking, and reporting on data related to human trafficking. The Government of Canada is investing more than $25 million over four years to implement this plan.

I'd like to turn to our work on community safety plans in aboriginal communities. This is something I'm very excited about. As part of the government's action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls, Public Safety will expand its successful initiative of working with aboriginal communities both on and off reserve across Canada to develop community safety plans. The action plan, as you know, is built on three pillars: preventing violence, supporting victims, and protecting aboriginal women and girls. Community safety plans support the first pillar, preventing violence.

The driver for Public Safety's approach is that many aboriginal communities do not have the capacity to work collectively to identify and address their safety needs. This leads either to no effort to improve safety or to crime prevention investments that do not target the real problems. The objective of this program is to support communities in developing community safety plans that define the risks that lead to crime and victimization, build on existing strengths, and identify gaps in responding to those risks.

The community safety plans serve as a blueprint to address the root causes of victimization and help communities determine what resources are available within the community and to more effectively target external resources, such as federal or provincial programming. Funding is not given to the community itself but is directed to providing training and capacity building to mobilize the community to find solutions to their safety issues. Public Safety reaches out to communities to determine their interest. These will include communities in regions the RCMP's analysis has identified as having a high incidence of violent crime perpetrated against women and girls.

Once the community's leadership has agreed to participate in this process and created a community core group to promote positive change, a trained aboriginal facilitator delivers a series of workshops to build skill sets and identify gaps and solutions. Ultimately, they will develop a safety plan that outlines an integrated response to addressing the causes of victimization and responds to community safety issues.

This builds on an initiative that was first funded by the Government of Canada in 2010. Since then, 53 communities, including three urban centres, have participated in mobilization workshops where community members discuss needs and resources. Ten of these communities have developed targeted safety plans. Results suggest that this approach supports aboriginal communities to address issues in a more comprehensive way. It allows communities to take ownership of issues and potential solutions and fully participate in the government's response.

Many aboriginal women grow up in marginalized situations without support networks as a result of difficult circumstances at home and in their communities. In some communities violence has become normalized, creating a sense of hopelessness that often seems inescapable. While not specifically targeted at women and children, by working with these communities to build their capacity to develop safe communities, we will reduce the number of aboriginal women going missing, being murdered, or being victims of domestic violence.

We attribute the success to date to the fact that this process utilizes an integrated, comprehensive approach to move communities from fixing problems to building communities into civil and sustainable societies that build upon the strengths and gifts of the people in each unique community. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and the strength lies in the ability to allow communities to determine their own priorities and support them to find ways of moving forward using a strength-based approach.

Public Safety will continue to work with partners at all levels of government to continue to support the development of community safety plans: police, the justice system, and most importantly aboriginal families, communities and organizations.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with all the respect that I have for the minister, I am disappointed she adopts the same attitude of her colleagues who will attack me and any member of the NDP by saying that we do not support victims. If she had listened to my speech, I said that we would support Bill C-26 to increase penalties for child offenders and that we would support Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

If the member cares about what I have to say, she would find that I have been advocating for victims rights and for child protection since becoming deputy critic for justice. All I am saying is that we need to do better, and we can do better. If the member disagrees with me, I am sorry, then she does not deserve to be in government. That is all I am saying.

[Pamela Arnott, Director and Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My name is Pamela Arnott. I work at the Department of Justice, more specifically at the Policy Centre for Victim Issues. I am accompanied by my colleague, Gillian Blackwell, who works in the area of family violence.

Gillian will speak about the Department of Justice's contribution to the family violence initiative. I would like to speak to you about the federal victims strategy, and particularly about two components within that strategy.

The federal victims strategy is led by the Department of Justice. Its objective is to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice and federal corrections system. While the strategy focuses on all forms of victimization, there are a number of components of its work that are particularly relevant to violence against women. I'd like to speak to you about the work we do with the victims fund as well as the work we do in criminal law reform.

The Victims Fund currently has $11.6 million per year available to fund projects and activities. Although prevention is not one of the objectives of the fund, its provisions can allow projects to be funded that establish exemplary practices in service delivery.

I would like to spend a few minutes on two areas of funding that are particularly relevant in fighting violence against women.

The first group of projects that I would bring to the committee's attention is the work we've done for child advocacy centres. Since 2010, more than $10 million has been made available for child advocacy centres, and we have financed more than 20 locations across Canada.

Child advocacy centres reduce the trauma that child victims and their families may experience in dealing with the criminal justice system, often including children who have witnessed or experienced violence, including violence against women or against themselves.

Second, the victims fund has been instrumental in advancing culturally sensitive services for aboriginal victims of crime and for families of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Early reports from those projects indicate that the projects have been quite successful in advancing dedicated services for families of missing and murdered aboriginal women.

In the area of criminal law, Canadian legislation provides for basic procedural or sentencing measures that together provide an overall response to violence against women, girls or other vulnerable groups.

Testimonial aids and other protection tools facilitate meaningful participation by women and girls who have suffered acts of violence. These include the fact that, in sentencing, courts are required to deal more severely with offences in which there is evidence that the crimes were motivated by age or gender or when the offence involves a breach of trust or the abuse of someone in a vulnerable situation.

The Government of Canada has pursued a robust criminal law agenda in the past few years that strengthens the criminal law's response to all forms of violence, including violence against women and girls. Some of its initiatives include increasing penalties for sexual offences committed against children—this was done in Bill C-10 in 2010—targeting the exploitation inherent in prostitution in 2014, and strengthening responses to child sexual abuse in the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act in 2012.

More recently, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, proposes rights for victims of crime, many of which will benefit women and girls who have been victims of violence. The bill proposes to give victims several rights, including the right to have their security and privacy considered, the right to be protected from intimidation and retaliation, the right to request the protection of their identity if they are a complainant or a witness in proceedings, and the right to request testimonial aids.

Related amendments to the Criminal Code support these rights. For example, amendments to the administration of rights to records held by third parties would require that a court consider the plaintiff's right to security of the person when determining whether it is appropriate to produce or examine a file. Testimonial aids should be more easily accessible to vulnerable victims and the security of the victims should be considered when making parole orders.

I will ask my colleague Gillian to continue the presentation.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thanks to each of our guests for being here today.

Mr. Gilhooly, I'd like to begin my questions with you.

You mentioned your thoughts on the duty to inform a victim regarding a plea bargain, in clause 21 of Bill C-32, and you also mentioned the testimony that we heard from a representative of the crown prosecutors service. You probably also know that the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers Association expressed concern that the provision that requires the court to ask if the victim has been informed of the acceptance of a plea bargain would somehow delay the court process and would be something that we couldn't allow because it would lead to too long a delay in the court process. As a lawyer, what's your response to that?

[Dolores Mallet, President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Dolores Mallet, and I am the mother of Yves Albert, who was murdered on March 14, 2002, because of mistaken identity during the bikers' war. Such a tragedy leaves complex sequels. I had to find the strength to continue to live for those I love.

I joined the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, or AFPAD, when it was created. I have been the president of that association since September 2014. During all the years of my involvement, I was in a position to observe the scope of the concerns and needs of the families of persons who were assassinated or disappeared.

The AFPAD now has 600 member families, and unfortunately, other families will join us. That situation justifies a careful study of the measures to strengthen the rights of victims. I am pleased that Bill C-32 has been tabled, and I must take this opportunity to tell you that when this bill was announced, some members of AFPAD wrote to us to express their enthusiasm The efforts of the legislator and of the various stakeholders who worked to make this bill a reality are welcomed by AFPAD, despite certain concerns.

Some of the amendments proposed to the Criminal Code will meet some of the victims' needs. Nevertheless, AFPAD fears that the enforcement of Bill C-32 will be complex. The provinces have to get involved so that the enforcement of this new act becomes a priority. We hope that appropriate measures will be taken to facilitate the sharing of jurisdictions regarding criminal justice among the various levels of government, provincial or territorial, so as to better help the families of victims of criminal acts. The AFPAD strongly urges provincial governments to follow the federal government's lead and to enforce this new act so as to recognize the rights of victims properly.

Clauses 6 to 8—Information: We are confident that victims will have better access to all information concerning the services and programs they are entitled to, as well as to any relevant information on the offender regarding his release, as well as to the dates, hours and location of proceedings. We are also very much in favour of the fact the the victims will have the right to obtain a photograph of the offender when he is released.

Clauses 9 to 13—Protection: AFPAD is in favour of the provisions contained in clauses 9 to 13, according to which everything will be done to help the victims feel respected and supported, and to avoid that they be subject to intimidation or threatening words or looks when they are present in court, which threats can subject them to very worrisome periods of anguish.

Clauses 16 and 17—Restitution: AFPAD welcomes the provisions in Bill C-32 and the amendments to the Criminal Code regarding restitution. However, in the interest of natural and restorative justice, restitution should always be mandated by an order. If the judge does not order restitution, he or she should explain the grounds for that decision in the judgment.

In our experiences with the families of victims, we have seen that they are impoverished because of the many expenses imposed by the tragedy, for instance funeral arrangements, travel, and having to be absent from work.

It is a good thing that if an offender fails to pay all of the amount that was ordered to be paid at the end of his sentence, the victims may file a claim regarding any amount that remains unpaid in court, as stipulated in section 741.1. In that way, the victims will be able to closely follow the reimbursement.

AFPAD thinks that the new forms that will allow victims to share with the judge their physical, moral, material and economic losses are beneficial. It is also a good thing that the judge may adjourn the proceedings to allow the victims to fill out these statements properly. We think it is relevant that the victims, or even the persons who represent them, be able to submit a drawing, letter, or even a photo to represent the victim before the offence was perpetrated.

We strongly support section 718, which stipulates that the courts will be able to impose a sentence that reflects the severity of the crime and the harm done to the victim, following their statement for the purpose of making the offender feel accountable. We strongly hope that Bill C-32 will make those involved in the justice system more aware of the realities experienced by the victims following the offences, and change attitudes, so that the victims do not feel pushed around or harried during the legal proceedings.

I thank you for your invitation. On behalf of the members of AFPAD, I hope that our recommendations will be heard and taken into account, so that the rights of offenders and those of the families of the victims can be given equal weight. Thank you very much.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children]

Good afternoon, members of the standing committee. Thank you for inviting our organization, Victims of Violence, to present on Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts.

Victims of Violence was incorporated as a national organization on November 27, 1984, which is 30 years ago. Part of our mandate is to provide support and assistance to victims of violent crime as they make their journey through Canada's justice system. Needless to say, it has been quite a journey, mostly positive. An important lesson that we learned was to be very very patient, that good things will happen when they are supposed to happen.

That is why I am here today. We view Bill C-32 as a well-thought-out piece of legislation which is fair and responsible for where we are currently in Canada in relation to being more responsive to victims of crime and their vast array of needs, concerns, services, and issues.

Since we do not have lawyers who can analyze this bill in a professional manner, I am going to present to you in the manner that I know best:

Thirty-three years ago when we reported our son missing to police, they told us that they would not take his name for 48 hours because he had just turned 16 and perhaps he was a runaway. That no longer happens in Canada. When we took his picture to newspapers, they said they could not print it as police would not authorize it. That no longer happens in Canada.

When his little body was found a month later, I was informed by telephone. I fainted. That no longer happens in Canada. When I asked how he died, I was told it was from a blow to the head. I asked if he was found with his clothes on or off. I was told that they could not give us this information. However, I found out from the headlines in the newspapers which had my son's picture on the front page. The headlines said that his nude, raped and bludgeoned body had been found by a person walking his dog. That no longer happens in Canada.

When I wanted to see his body to make sure it was my son, the police told us which funeral home his body was at. When we arrived, the funeral directors were shocked to see my husband and me and questioned who had sent us. We said it was the police. They took us into a separate room and had to explain that we would never recognize our son as his remains had to be scraped up and placed in a glass bottle. That no longer happens in Canada. When the killer was caught and charged, we learned by way of watching the news on television. It showed the killer's picture and 11 children. My son's picture was one of them. That no longer happens in Canada.

When we, the families, had the one and only meeting with the attorney general and crown prosecutor due to the controversial cash-for-bodies plea bargain deal, the prosecutor looked at all of us and said, “Look, I don't know why you're all so upset. The 11 children could just as easily have been killed in a school bus accident. I mean, if they're dead, they're dead”. That no longer happens in Canada.

I share this with you only as an example. I share it to let you know that although there have been great strides to change what took place with our family and many other families across Canada over the years, Bill C-32 now enshrines in federal legislation the right to information, in clauses 6, 7, and 8 of the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Further, that example is what is meant by the wording in the preamble, which states in particular, “Whereas victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect”. These are not just nice hollow words as they have true long-term impact on the direct victim and/or the victim's family if their loved one has been murdered. When Canada first adopted the United Nations declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, the declaration stated that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity.

I identified with those words so much because they explained the lack of personal respect for my dignity and why we were treated as we were by the various components in the justice system. This had severely injured me. In particular, there was the lack of respect for my dead son's dignity with the manner in which his case was handled. He could no longer speak for himself, so I took on the lack of respect for his dignity and combined it with mine. That is why when we buried him, I felt burning shame and I could not hold my head up. I promised him that I would not return to his grave until I could stand before him with my head up and with dignity.

It took 16 years to return to his grave. Throughout those years there were many more victims and victim advocates speaking out and governments were beginning to listen to what we were trying to explain as it relates to those words. Those feelings of lack of respect for their dignity have been coined the second injury and/or revictimization, when victims are dealing with the criminal justice system.

However, what was most significant was that at Clifford Olson's faint hope clause hearing in Vancouver, the RCMP invited all the families into a room at the courthouse and made a formal apology to all of us for the manner in which we had all been treated. They informed us that throughout the years positive changes had been made to the manner in which they dealt with crime victims and missing persons, etc. On our way home to Ottawa, we stopped in Saskatoon where our son is buried, and we went to Daryn's grave with our heads held high and a sense of respect for my son's dignity had begun to return.

Somewhere between 1988 and 2004 the word “dignity” has been taken out and shortened to just simply treating victims with respect. It seems to occur more on federal documents and websites as some provinces still maintain the words “respect for their dignity”. We would like to see the Canadian Bill of Rights changed back to the original intent of the wording in the United Nations declaration of basic principles. I know that is victim talk, but the words “respect for their dignity” indicates strength and has significant meaning to victims of crime.

The Canadian victims bill of rights is a significant piece of legislation that seeks to create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the first time in Canadian history. The fact that this bill is a quasi-constitutional document is profound. The bill specifically states in clause 2 that it is an act for the recognition of victims' rights, which means that the federal government has acknowledged that crime causes harm, loss, and injury to people, not to the state.

The preamble of the Canadian victims bill of rights is helpful in ascertaining its purposes, including: recognizing the harm of crime on victims and society; the need to treat victims with courtesy, compassion, and respect; the importance of considering victims throughout the justice system; realizing the rights of victims under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and acknowledging that the administration of justice is served by recognizing victims' rights.

The preamble is especially noteworthy as preambles may assist the courts in understanding and construing legislation. Judges sometimes refer to the preamble in writing their decisions. Where courts are called on to consider how a statute that impacts victims should be interpreted, the Canadian victims bill of rights preamble is now available to assist in clarifying Parliament's intention.

The Canadian victims bill of rights will create an administrative complaint process where victims are to go to the relevant federal department, agency, or body if they believe their rights have been infringed upon or violated. These government organizations are required to develop a complaints mechanism that includes a process to review alleged infringements or denials of victims' rights, authority to make recommendations to remedy violations of these rights, and an obligation to notify victims about the outcome of the complaint and any recommendations.

If victims are not satisfied with the response to their complaint, they can seek a review by any authority that has jurisdiction to review complaints in relation to that department, agency, or body.

The federal government may not have hands-on jurisdiction in relation to provincial victims' services, but it certainly has a role as a leader with regard to the treatment of victims of crime.

We view the Canadian victims bill of rights as a first step in beginning to develop a national framework for treatment of victims of crime across Canada. The federal victims ombudsman's office could help create a national standard or framework for victim services and operate as a partner for regional offices or provincial victims ombudsmen to help ensure the national standard is encouraged. Of course, there is the issue of provincial jurisdiction; however, this is an area where concerns should be put aside to work together. It is not a question of the federal government telling provinces what they have to do, so why would the provinces not want to have the best victim service programs they can have? To be clear, the federal victims ombudsman's office would work hand in hand with each province and territory and develop that framework and standard of service across Canada.

Whether the Canadian victims bill of rights would accomplish this of course remains to be seen. We would like to see consistency in the provision of services right across Canada.

The dominating reality of the Canadian criminal justice system is that of its divided responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments. While the federal government has the constitutional jurisdiction to enact criminal legislation, it is the provinces and territories that have the responsibility over the administration of justice, which will be the key aspect of how or whether these newly articulated victims' rights are given practical meaning. Equally, as Justice Minister MacKay has himself noted, the way these articulated rights are implemented will not be something that happens overnight, but will instead evolve over time.

In closing, much of what the government is entrenching in this bill is done regularly and routinely across this country. This bill is meant to bring together and consolidate a greater flow of information. A federal victims bill of rights is what has been lacking, and once it is amended and passed, we will be able to move forward and work toward more consistency in the provision of victims' services right across Canada.

Thank you very much.

[Maureen Basnicki, Co-founder, Canadian Coalition Against Terror]

I must say I was scheduled to be here in October, the day after the terrorist attacks in Ottawa, so that was a real trigger for me.

Today I come here after the attack in Jerusalem. The co-founder of CCAT, the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, is in Israel at this moment in time, and it is a friend of his who has been greatly injured, the gentleman who lived in Toronto. All this affects me needless to say. Bear with me, please.

Good afternoon, everybody, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the justice committee. I am grateful to be here today to lend my support and to thank the current government for initiating Bill C-32 for all victims.

This particular bill has been a passion of mine ever since I became a member of the victims of crime club. It was the murder of my husband on 9/11 that put me in this club.

Like many average Canadians, before the murder of my husband by terrorists, I could never envision my life changing so drastically. Never could I imagine being called a victim. You will note on the written statement that I always capitalize victim because it denotes respect.

Many people ask why I continue to identify myself as a Canadian 9/11 widow and a victim. I respond with a reply that makes most Canadians uncomfortable. I am a living Canadian victim, and my late husband is the dead victim. I will continue to label myself as a victim, and not a survivor or victorious, until such time as my beloved country Canada finds the balance between rights for criminals, or in my case terrorists, and the rights of victims.

My experience as a Canadian victim living in Canada, as did my late husband, was not something Canadians would be proud of if they knew all the issues I was faced with in the aftermath of Ken's murder. In the question and answer period after my testimony, I will be pleased to give any details this honourable committee wants to hear.

The point I would like to make is that there was no plan or policy in place for victims of terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11. Most Canadians just assume, first, that they will never enter the victims of crime club, and second, that if a Canadian is victimized, there will be basic rights and victim services to help them in their darkest moments.

The very basic rights of respect, compassion, and courtesy were not enforceable for me and my family after 9/11. I'm not talking about average Canadians, but rather the political powers, the government at the time of the terrorist attack in New York City.

I became a victim of politics. Even from the recent past, politicians are debating whether the murders of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Patrice Vincent were acts of terror or cold-blooded murders. One does not need to debate whether or not they were victims. Even though they resided in different provinces and were victims of a terror attack or a violent crime, there should be rights at the federal level and a sense of fairness for the victims of these heinous crimes.

In the aftermath of 9/11, at the highest level of our Canadian political leaders, I was dismissed. Initially our former prime minister at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attack discounted that Canadians were in New York. Six months after 9/11, following an outcry to have a public 9/11 memorial in Canada, the former PM said that these things happen from time to time and he saw no reason to mark that occasion.

To add to the pain of losing my husband to such a heinous crime, the prime minister publicly blamed the victims on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The prime minister was interviewed on CBC by Peter Mansbridge and publicly blamed western greed for the 9/11 attacks. I repeat, our Canadian prime minister blamed the victims.

When the fog of disbelief and hurt began to dissipate, I started to look into my rights as a victim of violent crime, albeit outside of our Canadian border.

We are not here to discuss victim services which victims should rightfully count on to navigate through the trauma they have been sentenced to for the rest of their lives. What is important to note, however, is that when I began to question what victim services were available at the provincial level, I was told that I did not qualify because my husband's murder occurred outside our borders. I have to qualify that, too, and right now, because sitting beside me is somebody who was instrumental in the Ontario victims of crime organization, Sharon Rosenfeldt. There was an outreach at the time, but they were tied by provincial mandates that didn't include terrorism. Everything was done that could possibly be done at that time. It was only later when there was a change of government that things changed.

At this time, I would like to have the committee look at the current definition of who is considered a victim of crime. As stated by the current Government of Canada Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime:

The law defines a victim as someone who has experienced emotional or physical harm as the result of a crime [committed in Canada]. Family members, legal guardians or dependants are considered victims when the victim is deceased, is a child, or is unable to act for him/herself due to illness or incapacity.

If we are to strengthen the victims bill of rights, it is most important to remember that a Canadian who resides in Canada is no less a Canadian if they happen to become a victim of traditional violent crime or terrorism outside our borders. Please ensure that victims' rights are enshrined when the crime is committed outside our border. After all, terrorists who are Canadian citizens and have been successfully convicted as terrorists—and I refer to Omar Khadr—are able to demand their rights. There should be a balance. I understand that there has been a lawsuit initiated against the Canadian government by Mr. Khadr.

At this time I would like to once again commend the current government for their initiative in proposing the VBR. I would like to invite all political parties to help draft the final result. Victims' rights are a non-partisan issue. I remind all the MPs here that they themselves narrowly escaped becoming victims of terrorism. Terrorists don't know borders. They don't care what political party you represent. They don't differentiate in regard to what one's ethnic or religious belief is when they decide to attack innocent civilians.

In my closing remarks, I would like to add the following. It was after my appearance in regard to the ATA that the Honourable Peter MacKay suggested that a Canadian ombudsman be created in order to have a federal government office that works to have victims of crime and their families heard. This was a giant step. However, I am still waiting for the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to be empowered to represent victims in situations when victims' needs are not being met. It is difficult to insist on victim services when the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada have not seen fit to include Canadians who have been victimized outside our borders in the definition of “victim”.

I'd like to refer to a quote by an Irish barrister: “All Canadian victims, including cases where the crime occurred abroad, shall have the right to access and receive, at least, a minimum standard of nationally consistent victim services and supports.” This quote could have come from the forum that was initiated by our ombudsman's office. I was fortunate to participate in this forum in September of this year.

It was at this conference that Maria McDonald, an Irish barrister, explained what was happening with the victims' rights directive in the EU. The victims' rights directive is a European law that requires all EU member states to implement legislation to give all victims of crime minimum rights, supports, and protection. This law will apply regardless of where the crime was committed in the EU.

I would like to echo the submissions of other members of the victims of crime club. Victims' voices of traditional types of crime have been heard by you from my friends Joe Wamback and Yvonne Harvey, and by wonderful victims organizations such as the CRCVC—I believe it was Heidi Illingworth—and of course, the federal ombudsman's office. Actually, Sue O'Sullivan, our current ombudsman, is supporting me today with her presence. Thank you, Sue. I know I will agree with Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is sitting next to me. I haven't read her testimony yet, but I know ahead of time that I will support her statements, because she shares membership in the victims of crime club.

I wish to go on record as supporting all the recommendations to strengthen this bill. I wanted to add my concerns through the lens of a victim of terrorism. I urge politicians of all our Canadian political parties to pass Bill C-32, but to strengthen it by listening to what other victims have stated before me. I sincerely hope that the Canada I know and love will be a leader in the global community and make the statement through the victims bill of rights that will enshrine our values as Canadians, and declare a national victims bill of rights that will be enforceable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 52.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 20, 2014, we're dealing today with Bill C-32, which is an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts.

We have a number of witnesses. I think we have six witness groups or individuals with us tonight.

From the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, we have Madam Basnicki, who is the co-founder. From the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, we have Ms. Campbell, who is the CEO and founder, and Mr. Reilly. From Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children, we have Ms. Rosenfeldt. From the International Organization for Victim Assistance, we have Mr. Waller. From the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, we have Madam Mallet and Madam Albert. Mr. Gilhooly is here today as an individual.

We are going to go through the witness list as presented on the agenda. You each have 10 minutes to make your presentation. After that, there will be a round of questions. We will finish around 5:30.

The Canadian Coalition Against Terror has the floor first.

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

I am accepting a challenge here. I am going to take advantage of the fact that I have the opportunity to speak to several lawyers at once here, and of the fact that this may be the first and last time where I will be able to do so without charge. That was a little joke, to start. I should add that I am also flanked by two lawyers

My first question is for the Canadian Bar Association representatives.

In part V of your brief on Bill C-32, you talk about the victim impact statement form, considered in sentencing. You propose that certain parts of that form be withdrawn, those that would allow the victim to express in writing the type of sentence they would like to see handed down to the accused.

I would like to hear your rationale for that. You say it is redundant, but would it not allow the judge to explain certain aspects of the system to the victim? For instance, if victims ask for a certain sentence, the judge could tell them that he understands, but that jurisprudence has to be taken into account. He could provide examples and explanations.

Aside from the redundancy issue, what was your reasoning on this?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank our witnesses.

This group of witnesses is probably the most diverse ever, and that is a good thing. Indeed, there are as many opinions as there are witnesses. We have lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association, and crown attorneys. It must be specified that the representative of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel is a crown attorney. He is probably the one who, without being the victims' attorney, works most closely with them. There are also other groups representing victims, who do not necessarily share the same opinion

This gives us some of the real backdrop to bill C-32.

I think everybody agrees that Bill C-32 is a good step. It's a step in a good direction. It has good at the heart of it.

Ms. Illingworth showed all the weaknesses of the bill, if I can call them that, in the sense that there is not much that is enforceable. A lot of things the victims will have to seek themselves. We have others who are raving.

I'll play the lawyer that I am, and I will address some of my questions to the lawyers, because I am not sure that I agree totally with what they have been saying.

I will begin with the representative of the Canadian Bar Association.

Mr. Gottardi, regarding clause 21 and the guilty plea notification, you have said that the proposals were ambiguous and might delay trials unnecessarily. I believe M. Woodburn said approximately the same thing. You are also asking us to withdraw that clause from the bill.

And yet, when I read the bill, I get the impression that this will not prevent you from obtaining guilty pleas, and that following the request from the judge, even if you have not had time to inform the victims, this will not prevent guilty pleas from being entered. You will simply have to inform the victims that that is taking place.

Moreover, subclause 21(4.4) states that:

Neither the failure of the court to inquire of the prosecutor, nor the failure of the prosecutor to take reasonable steps to inform the victims of the agreement, affects the validity of the plea.

What the hell are you afraid of with that clause? I mean, for me, it's a clause that's at the heart of what I hear a lot from victims, that sometimes they are not informed.

That may not include you, Eric, because I do know a lot of crown attorneys who do take the time with the victims.

But to infringe that in a charter, to say it's a right to know that there's a deal coming, that there's a plea coming—what's wrong with that?

I would address that first to “Mr. CBA”.

[Joseph Wamback, Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

The humane treatment of victims is of absolute, paramount importance to any civilized society. I have been working on and waiting for this for 15 years, and I'm here today to congratulate this government for initiating Bill C-32 and for recognizing the importance of providing protection to Canadian crime victims.

Today I am not going to deal with the minutiae of the bill, because I am so pleased that victims' rights are being considered, and my focus is to recognize its fundamental importance in Canadian society.

Victims' rights must never be subjected to the shifting influences of legislative majorities nor to any judicial assault or activism. They must be grounded in Canadian law to be applied equally across this country. The only way to truly achieve this is through an amendment to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Though, unfortunately, that is still some distance off in the future, Bill C-32 is a monumental leap forward in that direction.

Crime victims, as well as those accused, simply seek humane, fair treatment and balanced rights. They do not want handouts. They seek, as free citizens, to be empowered with rights and standing that no judicial or legislative authority can ignore or take away, rights that should be their Canadian birthright.

There are those who will question the emotional engine that fed this bill, but I'm sure that those individuals will concede that similar engines fed the campaign for the charter itself, and most legislators do not question the multiple, repeated cases of injustice and re-victimization witnessed each and every single day in Canada. They acknowledge them, but to date they have simply proposed to address them with statutory reform or rights or statements of principles that impart no legal rights for crime victims.

Bill C-32 is a beginning.

The very foundation of our justice system depends upon the voluntary cooperation of victims to report the crimes committed against them and to testify truthfully when called upon. Mistrust of the system and the overwhelming belief that it is unjust have already started to cripple the nation's confidence in its courts. This is a very dangerous consequence for Canada, a consequence far more dangerous than is creating rights for victims of crime.

The protections defined by Bill C-32 are the very kinds of rights with which our charter is typically and properly concerned, and those are the rights of individuals to participate in all those government processes that affect their lives.

Those who argue that victims' rights don't require definition are simply condemning victims to perpetual re-victimization and second-class citizenship. Throughout the evolution of our justice system, victims have been transformed into a group oppressively burdened by a system that was originally designed to protect them.

Today we witness the genesis of this redress through Bill C-32. I have had discussions with experts on the psychological effects of crime, and they conclude that the failure to offer victims a chance to participate in criminal proceedings can and does result in increased feelings of inequity, with a corresponding increase in crime-related psychological harm. There is overwhelming evidence that having a voice will improve a victim's mental condition and welfare even though they know and understand that their participation may not change the outcome.

A justice system that fails to recognize a victim's right to participate threatens secondary harm, harm inflicted by the operation of a process and beyond that already caused by the criminal act. This alone should give us cause to define victims' rights to minimize insult to the already criminally inflicted injury. Additional or secondary trauma stems from the fact that victims perceive the system's resources to be devoted almost entirely to the accused, and little remains for those who have sustained harm at the offender's hands. Bill C-32 will not eliminate that trauma, but it will go a long way to creating better and clearer understanding and acceptance by those who are victimized by crime.

lt must be emphasized that Bill C-32 is not an assault on the fundamental rights of the accused. There are vague assertions that offender rights will be undermined, and these assertions have little value other than to inflame this debate. Justice and the rights of Canadian citizens are not a zero-sum game. The rights proposed by Bill C-32 do not subtract from those rights already established for offenders. They merely add to the body of rights that all Canadians should enjoy.

I've heard some say that the costs of Bill C-32 will be enormous. These arguments are totally illegitimate. The reality is that the cost will be mere pennies on the dollar compared with what we spend for the rights of criminal defendants. It is simply a cost that society must be willing to bear.

Studies have shown that, by a vast majority, where a victim is told the reasons for a plea agreement in advance, they support the position. They want a conviction. My experience from other venues shows that when victims are consulted in advance, knowing that crown attorneys have the final decision but that their input is actually valued, the crown will generally have the support of the victims. This will strengthen the crown's position, both in court and in the eyes of the public, since most victims will support the crown's position on a plea when they understand the reasoning behind it. It should be an instant shield against public criticism.

I've heard it said that Bill C-32 could lead to unrealistic burdens on courts and crown attorneys. The charter has established rights for the accused that lead to burdens on the courts and crowns, and yet no one is complaining that those rights should not have been created or should be overruled. There is no legal, rational, or moral basis for why victims should suffer an inferior status in our laws and in our courts.

Justice often requires burdens to be borne. Currently the burden of injustice imposed on victims is far greater than any administrative burden that might theoretically befall the courts. Nothing in Bill C-32 makes a victim an additional party in a criminal trial. The fact that a victim is present and may be heard at critical stages does not increase the power of the state, nor does it diminish or infringe upon the rights of the accused. Bill C-32 simply does not give the victim an independent right to speak at trial or before the jury. These fears to the contrary are unfounded.

Some have suggested that there is no pressing need for victims rights, as virtually every right provided by Bill C-32 can be or is already protected in existing legislation and the charter itself. Statutory rights or principles impart no legal right to crime victims, nor any measure of accountability within the justice system. Further, existing laws and statements of principles have failed despite the victims movement that's in their interest.

Placing victims rights in the charter—this is something that I will keep pushing until I don't have any breath left—is the only way to create respect for the rights of victims and to make them part of the sovereign instrument of the whole people. I've heard it said that considerable progress has been made with respect to victims rights in Canada over the years, but considerable progress remains elusive in Canada. The daily injustices done to victims, and that continue, are neither acceptable nor trivial. Over the last few decades, I've witnessed the erosion of basic human rights for crime victims in Canada.

My singular concern today is and will continue to be that the rights and protections created in Bill C-32 will always take a back seat to the charter rights of the accused.

Thank you.

[Heidi Illingworth]

Thank you for inviting us to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights today.

Our agency is a federal not-for-profit corporation that was created in 1993 with a goal to provide a voice for persons harmed by serious crime in Canada. We offer advocacy, information resources, and emotional support to survivors. We're here today in support of Bill C-32, but we're calling for several amendments.

We believe that persons victimized by crime need to feel supported, retain their dignity, and be guaranteed a certain standard of treatment by our government. This bill means victims still go without legal status, a cause of action, or an appeal, should they not be satisfied. In my presentation today, I will highlight some of the amendments we are suggesting to strengthen this important legislation.

Information is power for victims, who are often left wondering what has happened, where to get help, or how their case will proceed. Bill C-32 addresses the need of victims for information, but it provides it to them only upon request. We feel that information should be offered to victims proactively. They should not have to request it given the trauma they've suffered and their general lack of knowledge about the criminal justice system or where to get help.

We also feel the language of the bill is too vague, in that it does not specify who is to provide this information to victims, how the information is provided, or how victims will even know they have such a right to request information. We cannot rely on the goodwill of professionals in the criminal justice system to provide the information. We must require them in legislation to do so. As such, we recommend the bill be amended to state:

Police and Crown prosecutors shall automatically provide victims of crime with:

general information about their rights under the Bill and how to exercise them, the criminal justice process, and support services available to them;

specific information about the progress of the case, including information relating to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them by the responding.

Information shall be provided to victims in the medium of their choosing, whether by mail, over the telephone or electronically.

Where a federal conviction has been secured, victims shall be provided instructions by the Crown's office on how to register with the PBC and CSC in order to receive information about the offender who harmed them.

With regard to the right to protection, the bill does not state which criminal justice authorities are responsible for the safety and security of victims, how victims' security will be considered in reality, or what reasonable and necessary measures are taken in each case. Without specifically requiring police and crowns to address these issues in each case where a victim raises concerns, victims' safety and protection may be overlooked. We recommend the bill be amended to state:

Police and Crown officials are responsible for consideration of the victim's security and privacy; and upon request of the victim, shall take reasonable and necessary measures to protect them from intimidation/retaliation, to protect their identity and privacy, and to provide access to testimonial aids. Where a victim raises a concern, each authority shall respond to the victim directly stating how the concern will be addressed.

With regard to the right to participation, the bill is unclear and does not specify to whom victims can convey their views or how their concerns will be formally addressed or acknowledged. We feel this bill is an important opportunity to ensure that judges make sure that victims who wish to be heard can do so at sentencing through impact statements, something that does not happen consistently across Canada currently. We recommend the bill be amended to state:

victims have a right to directly convey their views to police and Crown prosecutors about decisions to be made and that each entity must respond in a timely manner to indicate that the victim's concerns have been considered. Judges shall ensure that victims are provided an opportunity to address the court when the sentencing phase or sentencing hearings occur.

In Canada, our experience in working with victims of fraud tells us that restitution orders are very difficult for victims to enforce without incurring additional financial costs. Victims need practical help to enforce restitution orders, otherwise they are useless. It is especially difficult for victims to enforce such orders once the offender completes their sentence, and/or their parole period, because there's no longer an incentive for this offender to pay the balance of the order against them. Victims also commonly report to us that they have difficulty accessing information to help them gain access to funds they're owed because privacy laws protect the offender. We recommend the bill be amended to state:

each province and territory shall develop a restitution collection assistance program for victims based on the successful program currently offered to victims in the province of Saskatchewan.

I have some information about that and I can leave it with the clerk.

For rights to be meaningful in Canada, we feel that the victims bill of rights must offer appropriate recourse in the event that a victim's rights are infringed. In Bill C-32, the avenue for recourse is a requirement that federal departments and agencies establish internal mechanisms to receive and review complaints and then recommend remedial action. It does not state what recourse victims would have, if any, if internal complaint mechanisms did not resolve a situation to their satisfaction. We feel that this lack of recourse risks further aggravating and frustrating victims.

In the debates in the House, the minister said that the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime will provide some of the recourse and redress to victims if there are failings within the provincial and territorial system, to assist victims in trying to alleviate their concerns. We are concerned because this bill does not specifically mention this office, and it is questionable what it can provide to victims when it has no investigative powers or jurisdiction to look at the failings of the provinces.

Paragraph 25(3)(c) requires every federal department agency or body to notify victims of the result of the complaint reviews and of the recommendations, if any were made. This is problematic as we see it, because departments are investigating themselves and are not even required to provide an official recommendation to address the complaint. Also, we know that since provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, most of the complaints are going to be related to provincial matters involving investigation and prosecution of cases, and not federal departments.

We recommend that the bill be amended to require that federal, provincial, and territorial departments that receive complaints from victims respond in writing to all complaints, including an explanation of policy change or other outcomes, even where department officials deem them minimal. Offices that investigate complaints shall also have the authority to require a curative or restorative remedy from FPT departments where it is found that a victim's rights were infringed, including requiring crowns and police officers to receive education about the bill or to write letters of apology where it is deemed a victim's rights are infringed.

There are other significant gaps in the bill that we wanted to highlight for you. We feel that it is lacking a clear right to support services in the aftermath of what has happened to victims. In the interests of community resiliency, we feel that victims must be guaranteed support services to help them recover. This bill should be amended to reflect this.

Another major concern of ours is that the bill does not apply to victims in the military, and we feel that it should be amended to include this group. We know that victims of sexual assault and harassment in the military have a particularly difficult experience. Recent research has highlighted the fact that those who file complaints face mockery, ostracism, and even threats. Victims clearly do not feel safe to come forward and report these crimes to superior officers.

Lastly, with regard to monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of this bill, we're concerned about how it's going to be enforced uniformly across Canada, since it is the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice. We believe it's critically important to monitor and assess how this legislation is implemented and enforced, so that in practice victims every day are not denied their rights.

We recommend that each province and territory establish an agency with an oversight function to help monitor the rights of victims and their fair treatment by criminal justice practitioners. Such offices may investigate both the statutory violations of victims' rights and alleged mistreatment by criminal justice practitioners in a neutral and objective manner. We feel that this office could also make recommendations to provincial and territorial authorities for change and should be required to report to the Policy Centre for Victim Issues annually about the number and circumstances of crime victims whose rights have been infringed.

We also recommend that the policy centre for victim issues provide a biannual monitoring report to Parliament so that criminal justice stakeholders and members of the public are aware of how victims' rights are being implemented and enforced, how many complaints are received, and how many are resolved to the victims' satisfaction while enhancing FTP cooperation in this regard.

To conclude, we view the Canadian victims bill of rights as a valuable piece of quasi-constitutional legislation that for the first time recognizes some of the needs of people who are harmed by crime in Canada. However, we feel that this bill requires victims to seek out the rights provided to them rather than being offered them automatically. It's also difficult to see how we're making victims' lives easier if we don't provide real recourse to them when their rights are violated. If we don't provide victims the ability to enforce their rights, the bill doesn't have the desired effect of changing the existing legal culture, which often excludes victims from criminal processes.

Nor will it hold criminal justice authorities to account in terms of respecting the rights it enshrines. We must do better than this for persons harmed by crime in Canada.

Thank you.