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.

[Lianna McDonald, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of this committee, I thank you very much for giving our agency the opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-32.

My name is Lianna McDonald, and I am the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a registered charity providing national programs and services related to the personal safety of all children. Joining me today is my colleague Monique St. Germain, general counsel for our agency. She will answer some questions later on.

Our goal today is to provide insight and support for Bill C-32, legislation that will create a federal victims bill of rights. We will offer testimony based on our role in operating the many programs aimed at reducing the sexual exploitation of children.

Our agency was founded in 1985 as Child Find Manitoba after the disappearance and murder of 13-year-old Candace Derksen. Candace disappeared while on her way home from school. Her disappearance and death had a profound and lasting effect on our province and our community.

Today our organization operates MissingKids.ca, a national missing children program, as well as Cybertip.ca, Canada's tip-line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Since launching nationally, we have received 125,000 reports from the public regarding the online sexual abuse and exploitation of children. It is through this work that we have seen the most brutal behaviours towards children, everything from the recording of graphic sexual or physical assaults against very young children by predatory adults to teens coping with the aftermath of a sexual crime that has been recorded.

Through the course of our work, we have had the opportunity to hear from and work closely with many families devastated by sexual victimization. We are acutely aware that the sexual abuse of children is a vastly under-reported crime that can go unrecognized for years. We know that when victims do come forward, a conviction is nowhere near certain. In many cases, moving forward with the court process can result in additional trauma for the victim. Finally, we know that the sentencing process to date has not adequately recognized the impact on the specific victim or on society as a whole.

What we have heard loud and clear is that every victim needs a voice and every victim needs to count. We see this bill as an important step towards ensuring that victims not only obtain the information and support they need but also are able to participate in the justice system in a meaningful way that respects their dignity throughout the process.

For the above reasons, we welcome the creation of this bill. I want to highlight and speak to some key components that we've identified.

The first is restitution. Restitution is a component of sentencing that is common to property and fraud cases but rarely considered in other cases. Yet a victim has often incurred, and will continue to incur, significant intangible expenses as a result of the crime. For example, a parent whose child has been abducted by the other parent may incur travel, legal, and other costs to search for and recover the child. A victim of child sexual abuse may need to obtain specialized counselling or other services to help them deal with the aftermath of abuse and disclosure, and cope with the ongoing court processes.

Having a standardized form will assist victims in identifying these losses for the court, and will help level the playing field for all victims. Making it mandatory for a judge to at least consider restitution will not only increase the chance that restitution is ordered in appropriate cases; it will also provide the court with a concrete way to better understand the financial impacts of crime and the extent to which those costs are borne by individual, innocent victims.

While we realize that offenders will not have the means to pay restitution, and that in some cases the need for incarceration will outweigh the benefit of any restitution order, there will be cases where it will be appropriate. While we would have hoped for recognition within the bill of the types of losses that may be specifically associated with the abuse of technology, we believe the bill's provisions on restitution provide an important starting point that can be built on going forward.

Additionally, adding the words “protect society” as a fundamental purpose of sentencing to proposed section 718 is an important and welcome change, particularly considering the vulnerability of children. We have seen all too often that those convicted of crimes against children, those who by the very nature of their crime pose a clear and obvious danger to children, receive sentences that do not adequately protect society.

We realize that sentencing is an individualized process with many competing factors to be taken into account, but mandating that the protection of society be considered will help to rebalance the scorecard and strengthen the court's ability to impose meaningful sentences that adequately address the risk an offender poses to society.

I'm going to provide a case in point. The case involves the offender, Peter Whitmore, who is currently serving a life sentence for two counts of kidnapping and sexual assault causing bodily harm, among other offences. In 2006 he took a 14-year-old boy from Manitoba, then abducted a 10-year-old boy from Saskatchewan. He told both boys he would kill them and their families. He made them watch child pornography and sexually assaulted them.

While the details of that case are shocking, what is even more shocking is that Mr. Whitmore had, on at least two prior occasions, abducted and sexually assaulted young children, and had sexually assaulted at least five other children. He had taken his first known victim, an 11-year-old boy, and sexually assaulted him for several hours. The sentence imposed for that assault, along with the sexual assault of four other victims, was 22 months.

Within nine days of release from custody, he engaged in repeated sexual assaults against an eight-year-old girl over the course of three full days. When news of that assault became public, another victim came forward. He received a four-and-a-half-year sentence for the assaults on those two victims. After being released, and committing a series of parole violations, he went on to kidnap and sexually assault two boys from Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

The repeated and serious behaviour of this offender posed an obvious danger to children and nearly cost these children their lives. It is for cases such as this one that the sentencing changes will be most meaningful.

We also welcome the addition of provisions to formalize the use of community impact statements. The inclusion of these types of statements will pave the way for broadening the scope of information considered by the court, and ensure a more accurate picture of the way in which a particular crime impacts the community.

Crime is more than just about one victim and one offender. Certain types of crimes have a long-lasting and profound impact upon an entire community. Consider the case of a child who has been abducted. Whether the child is returned, seemingly unharmed, as in the case of the young child abducted from his bedroom by Randall Hopley in 2011, or if the outcome is much more tragic, as in the case of young Tori Stafford, entire communities are forever impacted. Safety and security is shattered. Children are no longer free to go and play. The heightened anxiety, and the distrust that can build while a case remains unsolved, are things that can cause lasting harm, which cannot be properly conveyed through an individual impact statement.

What I want to point out for our work, in particular, is that for some crimes the victim is unknown. In child pornography, the space that we're most involved in, most of the children depicted are unidentified, and therefore no one can file a victim impact statement. A community impact statement may be an effective way to convey important information about the nature and extent of the harm posed by such crimes, a way to give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves.

Finally, we are pleased to see adjustments to the provisions on testimony. For example—I'll just name a few—expanding the things a court must consider when an application has been made to exclude the public from the courtroom will help to ensure consistency in decision-making, and will be important to victims.

In particular, requiring a court to consider the ability of the witness to give a full and candid account of the acts complained of, if the order were not made, is key in the context of child sexual abuse. It is often very difficult for a victim of any sexual crime to come forward to police. It is intimidating and traumatic for a victim to have to recount that abuse in a courtroom full of strangers. It can be even worse if the victim comes from a small community. While a publication ban may be available, a publication ban will not be enough if the people sitting in the courtroom know who you are, know where you live, and know your abuser.

Also, in cases involving child pornography of an identified victim, the trauma of the sexual abuse has already been compounded by the recording of the abuse. It is hard enough for such a victim to know that the prosecutor, defence lawyer, and judge are viewing the abuse. Having the recording of the abuse also played before a courtroom full of strangers can result in unnecessary damage and re-traumatization of the victim.

In closing, our agency is supportive of the changes brought forward through Bill C-32. Every victim should have a voice. Every victim should matter, and every child brave enough to come forward should know that their voice will be heard, and that they too can have confidence in our criminal justice system.

Thank you.

[Yvonne Lindfield, Co-Founder, Manager of Education and Community Outreach, Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.

I am very happy to be here this afternoon and have an opportunity to address you. I am a co-founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims. I manage the education and community outreach programs.

Canadian Parents of Murdered Children is a national charitable organization first formed in 2009 to provide ongoing emotional support, education, and assistance to parents and survivors of homicide victims while promoting public awareness and education of all Canadians.

There are many kinds of victims of crime. My work involves a specific group of people who have become co-victims or what is commonly referred to as survivors of victims of homicide. I speak to you today on behalf of those parents whose child or children were murdered, as well as other family members who have lost a loved one to homicide.

It is impossible to expect anyone who has not been directly impacted by the act of murder to understand the enormous grief, the immense anger, and the depth of hopelessness that those of us who have experienced such a life-changing, traumatic event feel. The grief caused by murder does not follow a predictable pattern, and no one can ever be prepared for such a loss. No amount of counselling, prayer, justice, restitution, or compassion can ever bring a child or a loved one back. In homicide the primary victim is dead.

However, what we can do as a society to reduce ongoing trauma and in many cases re-victimization is to give the living victims, the survivors of homicide victims, the right to have a voice, to be acknowledged and considered as having been directly impacted by the crime. Our criminal justice system has evolved over many years. It is neither designed nor equipped to heal the victims of the trauma caused by the crime. It is set up to consider the guilt of the accused and protect the public. An effective criminal justice system is the basis of a civilized and prosperous society. I believe that without creating unjust or unfair treatment of the offender, rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority sets out a blueprint by which equality can be achieved.

Bill C-32 is a significant and greatly welcomed piece of legislation that seeks to create clear statutory rights to information protection, participation, and restitution at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canada's history. However, there are those who would have you believe that giving reasonable and enforceable rights to victims would throw us back into medieval times when vengeance and retaliation were the rule of law.

I believe that the creation of the Canadian victims bill of rights is a major and positive shift in the criminal justice culture and its implementation will codify a modern, balanced, and just society. In preparing for today, I had a difficult time deciding which proposed right to address within the timeframe available to me. Therefore, I decided to focus on a systemic problem that currently exists among jurisdictions in Canada, the correction of which is vital to the success of the administration and enforceability of Bill C-32.

One must acknowledge and understand the vast challenges and inequality of services that victims face across the country. The federal government has constitutional authority for the enactment of criminal law and criminal procedure. However, the provinces and territories have constitutional authority over the administration of justice, including investigation and prosecution, as well as victim services.

Although every province and territory has legislation addressing victims' rights and services, they vary greatly from one jurisdiction to another. While we must respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces, the Canadian victims bill of rights provides an opportunity to engage all jurisdictions to revisit their legislation and make it parallel with the federal government's victims bill of rights.

The interpretation and administration of these rights must be the same in every jurisdiction. Only in this way will universality and fundamental equality of rights as identified in Bill C-32 benefit all victims in Canada. The successful administration of Bill C-32 requires social change throughout the country that actively promotes crime victim-centred legal advocacy, training, education, public policy, and resource sharing.

Nationwide training on the meaning, scope, and enforceability of victims' rights through practical skills courses, online webinars, and teleconferences open to, but not limited to, attorneys, judges, advocates, law enforcement, and policy-makers, is imperative if Bill C-32 is to enhance fairness and justice for victims.

Similar to the criminal justice community's need for training, victims also need to be educated in order to best understand and exercise their rights under Bill C-32. Therefore, resources need to be available to help victims effectively access the federal, provincial, and territorial programs and services available to them. The important principle is that all Canadians have access to the same type of information in a timely manner.

People who use public services want to know what services are available to them and how to access them. This is especially true for victims of crime who have to try to understand and negotiate a complex and intimidating criminal justice system, which they may have never dealt with before. The result is the victims' needs are unmet and they are left uninformed, resulting in a negative impact on their well-being as well as their confidence and engagement with the police and the wider criminal justice system.

It is important to clearly identify the role of each agency within the criminal justice system. Access for victims to a single Web portal would provide the means to lessen, if not eliminate, gaps and create a seamless flow of information. Should there be a breach of rights under the Canadian victims bill of rights, the efficiency of the internal complaints process to correct an infringement and provide a resolution in a timely manner is absolutely essential to avoid additional harm to the victim in another long, drawn-out process.

The fulfilment of these rights should be measured by performance indicators developed for each criminal justice agency in contact with victims. If victims are able to secure participatory status in the criminal justice processes, it will provide them with a sense of empowerment, something we lose when we become a victim of crime, and it will promote a positive interaction with the criminal justice system. It will reduce trauma and additional victimization, which is extremely detrimental and debilitating. And it will restore public confidence in the Canadian criminal justice system.

Finally, I wish to comment on the cost of implementing new legislation and the resulting services when the Canadian victims bill of rights comes into force. Tens of millions of Canadian tax dollars go into the maintenance and enforcement of justice and to incarcerate, educate, and rehabilitate offenders. While education and rehabilitation of offenders as well as crime prevention programs are critical to reducing crime and creating safer communities, it is equally important to provide rights, services, and rehabilitation for the victims of those crimes. To help offset the cost borne by victims and their families through no fault of their own, and to reduce demands on the Canadian tax dollars, some of this financial responsibility should be borne by the offenders.

While our constitutional rights are near and dear to our hearts, and are the foundation upon which this great country thrives, the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights must over time—because it will take time—ensure that all parties operating within the criminal justice system shift their mindset to one of equality for both the offender and the victim. Bill C-32 will have a profound impact on how the criminal justice system, and other government departments and agencies, treat victims. I appeal to all political parties and all levels to work cooperatively to ensure its effective implementation.

Thank you.

[Eric Gottardi, Chair, Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a privilege for me to appear before this committee once again.

In my testimony today I hope I can bring a broad perspective to the discussion. As Ms. Schellenberg mentioned, I primarily work as a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver. I have worked as a crown prosecutor in British Columbia and in Ontario. I'm also a victim of crime: property, financial-related crime, and serious violent crime. Like many victims, I have been frustrated by a lack of information about my case and its progress through the courts. That is, in part, why I am so pleased to comment on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

The Canadian Bar Association had an opportunity to consult with the minister quite extensively over the course of his cross-Canada consultation. I myself met with the minister in Vancouver, and our members consulted with the minister in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and myself again in Ottawa.

The CBA recognizes that an effective criminal justice system must balance the interests of victims of crime, the procedural rights of those accused of crimes, and the public interest in seeing the efficient administration of justice. As such, we were quite pleased to see that the minister had quite wisely declined to create full-party status for victims and had worked to protect the prosecutorial discretion of our crown prosecutors, in section 20 of the act, which the CBA strongly supports.

As Chief Justice McLachlin said in the decision of O'Connor many years ago:

What constitutes a fair trial takes into account not only the perspective of the accused, but the practical limits of the system of justice and the lawful interests of others involved in the process, like complainants and the agencies which assist them in dealing with the trauma they may have suffered. Perfection in justice is as chimeric as perfection in any other social agency. What the law demands is not perfect justice, but fundamentally fair justice.

On the whole, the CBA section believes that this bill is an important step forward, improving the way the criminal justice system responds to victims of crime; however, some of the proposed amendments fail to strike the appropriate balance, leading to fundamental unfairness and some inefficiency.

I will outline some of our concerns and our recommendations to better balance the important interests at stake.

First, clause 21 of the bill proposes to enact a new provision that would require prosecutors to take reasonable steps to inform victims of guilty pleas. The provision would also require courts, after accepting the plea, to enquire whether prosecutors took such steps—laudable on its face.

These proposals, however, will place a significant burden on crown counsel and public resources. The onus seems to be on the crown to inform a victim that the accused intends to plead guilty prior to the guilty plea, and this may potentially lead to a delay in the actual sentencing.

It would also require additional staff time and resources in already overburdened and overworked crown prosecutors' offices across this country.

It may also raise victims' expectations about the extent to which their input will be considered in the agreement between defence and crown. Dissatisfaction with that level of input might give rise to more complaints under the proposed complaint provisions, at least insofar as it impacts on our federal prosecutors.

This concern is really one of perception. By using the rights terminology in the bill of rights, I'm concerned the victims may see their role as a competing one with the accused. That would be unfortunate, in a way that's consistent with the concerns expressed in writing to this committee by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association in their brief of September 25.

Second, the bill proposes amending the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code to include reference to the harm done to victims or to the community, in proposed paragraphs 718(a) and 718.2(e). These proposed amendments, in my submission, are unnecessary, as paragraph 718(f) already says it's the fundamental purpose of sentencing:

to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

Repetition will only lead to confusion and litigation, clogging the justice system even more. For example, it's unclear whether the repeated reference to harm done to victims or to the community means that judges should attribute greater weight to that consideration than to the other important considerations in sentencing, including proportionality, the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and rehabilitation and reintegration.

The addition to paragraph 718.2(e) is particularly problematic. Paragraph 718.2(e) calls for restraint in sentencing generally and, in particular, in sentencing aboriginal offenders. It's a response to the problem of over-incarceration in Canada generally and, in particular, to the disproportionate incarceration of aboriginal offenders.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue, and more recently in Ipeelee, recognized that aboriginal Canadians are overrepresented in Canadian jails, and the sentencing process may help address this unconscionable situation by requiring sentencing judges to pay particular attention to the unique circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

By adding a reference to the harm done to victims of the community in paragraph 718.2(e), the proposed amendment may suggest that greater weight must be placed on the harm done to victims than on the unique circumstances of aboriginal offenders. In this way the proposed amendment, combined with the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties in Canada and the elimination of conditional sentence orders for many non-violent offenders, seriously risks adding to Canada's overreliance on incarceration, particularly for aboriginal and marginalized communities.

This CBA section, therefore, recommends that the amendments to section 718 of the code or at the very least those to paragraph 718.2(e) of the code be deleted from the bill.

Finally, clause 17 of the bill proposes a new regime allowing for the non-disclosure of a witness's identity in the course of the proceeding. On application of the prosecutor, the judge shall consider several factors, including the right to a fair and public hearing and the importance of the witness's testimony to the case in determining whether or not to make the order.

Concealing a witness's identity from the accused in the criminal proceeding is fraught with difficulties, including constitutional hurdles. Restricting the disclosure of a witness's or victim's identity in open court will seriously hinder an accused's right to make full answer in defence, and the CBA section is of the view that this proposal will not survive constitutional scrutiny.

There are also practical concerns. How can crown or defence counsel effectively direct a direct examination or cross-examination without revealing any information about the identity of the witness or the victim? Those are practical considerations that this committee should keep in mind. We therefore recommend that clause 17 be deleted.

But overall the section agrees that protecting victims is a very laudable goal and that the bill generally strikes an appropriate balance among the competing interests in the criminal justice system. While some aspects of the bill skew that balance, resulting in unfairness to the accused or, worse, inefficient administration of justice, we understand that perfect justice is not required but that there has to be fundamental fairness.

Thank you.

[Gaylene Schellenberg, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you for the invitation to present to you today the Canadian Bar Association's views on Bill C-32.

The CBA is a national association of over 37,000 lawyers, law students, notaries, and academics. An important aspect of our mandate is seeking improvement in the law and in the administration of justice. It's that aspect of our mandate that brings us to you today.

Our submission on Bill C-32 was prepared by our national criminal justice section, which represents a balance of crown and defence lawyers from across the country. With me is Eric Gottardi, the chair of that section. He practises primarily as a defence lawyer in Vancouver, but frequently acts as crown as well. I'll turn it over to him to address the substance of our submission and respond to your questions.

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

Members, before we get started, the budget for this committee is in front of you.

Could somebody move that for me?

It's been so moved by Mr. Goguen.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

We have six witnesses today. Each group gets 10 minutes, so there's an hour of presentations. Witnesses will speak in the order in which they appear on the orders of the day.

From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Mr. Gottardi and Ms. Schellenberg; from the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc., we have Ms. Lindfield; from the Canadian Resource Centre of Victims of Crime, we have Ms. Illingworth; from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, we have Ms. McDonald and Ms. St. Germain; from the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation, we have Mr. Wamback, whom we've seen many times; and from the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, we have Mr. Woodburn.

Thank you very much for joining us.

We'll start with the Canadian Bar Association. You have 10 minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Flaherty-Spence, when Ms. O'Hearn passed the floor over to you, she promised that you were going to talk about Gladue. I'd like to give you an opportunity to speak a bit about the impact of this legislation on the Gladue principles. Former justice minister Irwin Cotler has said that “Bill C-32 would appear to limit the application of the Gladue principles by specifying that the sentence must be 'consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community'”.

I have a two-part question, one that arises out of testimony we heard from the Chiefs of Ontario. First of all, what is your reaction to Mr. Cotler's comments that Bill C-32 will compromise the Gladue principles? Second, given that we have enshrined in the Criminal Code provisions to deal with the unique situation of aboriginal offenders, do you not find that the absence of any such provisions in the victims bill of rights is problematic?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you to the two representatives of the Pauktuutit. I'm glad to see that you were participating in the consultation.

Today we received an answer from the Minister of Justice concerning a question that was asked of him when he came in front of this committee on Bill C-32, where it was supposed to—and I'm sorry, I'll switch to French which is easier for me.

On October 9, 2014, he made the commitment before this committee to provide us with information about the aboriginal organizations that had played a role in developing Bill C-32, about their comments and about the measures in the bill designed to address their concerns. He answered a number of questions.

Some of my impressions about the minister's remarks correspond to what you told us.

I tend to agree with you. There is nothing in this bill about cultural differences. You talked—and not too much—about the Gladue case from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was very clear that because of specific cultural...that we had to address this.

In one of his answers the minister made the following quite clear.

BillC-32 will apply to all victims of criminal acts with no regard to race, personal or financial circumstances, gender, age, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. Although many of the proposed provisions may be particularly useful for aboriginal victims, the Victims Bill of Rights will give the same rights to aboriginal victims as to other victims all across Canada.

Representatives from the Native Women's Association of Canada told us that a number of victims are afraid of the police. That may seem strange to people like us who live in cities and are used to seeing them play a role in the community. But the perception of people living in more remote locations may be very different.

Is that a concern for you? How should we tackle this new charter so that you benefit from it as much as victims in big cities?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Not to corner you, but in a sense, was there any consultation prior, because I'm a bit surprised that the charter is now in front of us and you guys need to evaluate and see where it's going. I know you discussed it three or four weeks ago, but were there more discussions before that? Did you see Bill C-32 in a project manner—for example, to see how you would be able to implement it? If the federal government brings Bill C-32 with a specific deadline, I would have suspected that a good government would already have made sure that its partners in the federation were aware of what they would have to do.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Chair/“share”.... Anyway, it's that time of the day.

I would first like to thank all the witnesses for joining us today. Your experiences all vary, but they have one point in common, supporting victims. Thank you for the work you are doing at various levels.

Minister, I will start with you because it's a rare breed, a minister of justice from one of our great provinces who comes in front of our committee. We truly appreciate it because we heard, through some of the testimony of some victims support groups—and being a lawyer myself, it was quite clear in my head—that you guys will have to apply this charter on a day-to-day basis. So we make the laws in some aspect and then we—I wouldn't say dump because that would not be a nice word—

We are happy to pass the responsibility on to you, you might say.

But I appreciate the words you expressed, the practicality, because it kind of sounds a bit like our own Minister of Justice in Quebec who said exactly the same thing following the federal/provincial/territorial conference that happened, I think, in Alberta not too long ago. She said that the justice ministers view Bill C-32 as a positive. A lot of provinces already do what is necessary to be done, but if we want to add, we will need to give you time.

I'm a bit afraid, and I guess you saw that it's three months, 90 days, that is one of the deadlines. That is, as soon as it's going to be adopted, it's going to be 90 days from la sanction royale. So is that too fast for you to be able to implement?

[Jonathan Denis]

That's okay.

In particular, the technical issues and requirements posed to circuit courts would need to be considered, as those technical options may not be available in all communities.

This bill also makes a number of amendments to the Criminal Code provisions that deal with restitution orders, something that's very important to victims. These changes will undoubtedly result in increased numbers of restitution orders being made to courts. Again, in and of itself that's not necessarily a bad thing, but something that we have to plan for. Systems and processes will need to be put into place or expanded to ensure that victims are notified of their right to seek restitution, as well as to assist them in applying for restitution and assist them in filing a restitution order for enforcement.

We held significant consultations in 2002 prior to the development of our Victims of Crime Protocol. This protocol outlines what victims can expect from the criminal justice system. This protocol, again, is designed to appeal to victims who do not have legal advice, in plain everyday language.

Wide-ranging consultations may need to be held across the province to update the protocol in light of Bill C-32 to ensure that the goals of the bill are met in this province and elsewhere. Therefore, we are seeking an appropriate amount of time—for instance, just six months—to ensure that our systems and processes are up to date and ready for the smooth implementation of this bill.

In conclusion, Alberta supports Bill C-32. We see it very much as a positive step forward. I do appreciate the opportunity to come before this committee to outline our concerns. I also want to extend a special thank you to Suzanne Kendall of our department for her assistance in this regard.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and apologize for any inconvenience earlier.

[Jonathan Denis, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, Government of Alberta]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's nice to see you again, albeit through a different means than last time.

Our priorities in Alberta include promoting safe and secure communities, ensuring adequate access to justice, and, of course, supporting victims first. The rights of victims must not be ignored or compromised. Our position is that Bill C-32 carries the same premise.

In the three years that I've had the privilege of serving in this position, I've met many individuals who've been victimized, all through no fault of their own. Just last week in Edmonton, I was an invited guest of a group of families who had loved ones who had been murdered. While it was a very difficult meeting, it underpinned again to me the need to support these victims first and to continue to provide services to them. On the other side, of course, many victims who I've met have been nothing short of heroic, and you've heard from one of them today: Mr. Sheldon Kennedy.

We applaud the efforts of the federal government to act along the same lines as we believe. To this end, Alberta supports Bill C-32 as it reflects how victims of crime in Alberta have been treated for many years; however, we do have some comments about Bill C-32, which I'll outline in a moment.

Alberta agrees that the rights of victims should play a significant role in the criminal justice system. This is why earlier this year we passed amendments to the Victims of Crime Act to make it easier for victims to access benefits.

Our Victims of Crime Act gives legislative life to these important rights. We have had a compensation program in place since 1969 and will continue this. Since 1997, the Victims of Crime Act has included principles to which all members of the criminal justice system in Alberta must adhere when working with victims. These principles are very similar to those found in Bill C-32.

The robust programs and policies we have in this province make the legislation and its benefits available to victims across the province. On a daily basis, our victim services workers help victims of crime navigate the criminal justice system. In fact, our financial benefits program has assisted many Albertans who have been victimized by serious and violent crime, and we have every intention of continuing to do so.

Now, although we support Bill C-32, we have identified several challenges that may impact our provincial programs and services. It is our desire to make Bill C-32 more workable and, frankly, even better than it already is.

Bill C-32 establishes rights for victims that may create expectations of provincial programs, which could create resource and training impacts. We urge the federal government to make minor adjustments to the bill to ensure that it can be rolled out smoothly in Alberta and have a positive impact on the administration of justice from coast to coast to coast.

Our first concern is the definition of “victim”. The victims bill of rights act defines a victim as “an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission...of an offence”. Bill C-32 amends the definition of victim found in section 2 of the Criminal Code. This amendment significantly broadens the current definition of victim for the purposes of the Criminal Code. This change may have far-reaching impacts on all aspects of the criminal justice system.

Our ask, basically, is that Alberta requires time to consider all of the impacts that this broader definition will have on the criminal justice system. Alberta, like many other jurisdictions, defines “victim” differently in our own provincial legislation. Our Victims of Crime Act defines victims for the purpose of financial benefits as those who are injured physically or psychologically or killed as a result of a crime. The key difference is that our definition in this province does not include those who are victims of economic or property crime.

We have another broader definition of victim for the purposes of victims of crime programs, and it includes all victims who have suffered injury or loss. Victims of crime in this province may apply for financial benefits under the provincial legislation if they have suffered injury. These benefits are not currently available to victims of economic or property crime. Economic or property crime may cause significant injury to individuals, and we are in no way discounting this fact, but rather are indicating that the resources required to move in this direction need to be considered and, of course, where they would come from.

The difference in definitions in the victims bill of rights, our legislation, and the amendment to section 2 of the Criminal Code may be somewhat confusing to victims. One possible solution would be to amend the definition of victims in Bill C-32 to “as defined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the province in which sentencing is occurring”. Another possible solution would be to clarify that “victim” is “as defined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the province in which sentencing is occurring for the purposes of all provincial programs and benefits”.

The second approach would mean that there is no substantive change to the availability of victims' access and all-round rights in Bill C-32, while affirming the rights of various provinces to define “victim” differently for the purposes of their own programs and services, and also to ensure consistency throughout the entire province and ease of understanding by victims.

Again, I recognize that economic or property crimes can cause real injury to victims across the country. That being said, appropriate time is needed before the legislation comes into force to allow victims' services organizations to prepare information and training materials to minimize confusion among victims about available programs and services. Ensuring that victims programs and services are well positioned to educate victims and communicate with them will ensure that the aims and goals of the victims bill of rights are met.

Finally, if the legislation were to continue to define “victims” as including economic or property crimes, we also ask that this matter be brought before the next federal-provincial-territorial meeting of justice ministers to discuss the financial impacts on provinces.

Our second commentary relates to the definition of “community”. Community impact statements added to the Criminal Code by way of Bill C-32 are not necessarily new. While the code was not specifically [Inaudible--Editor] for them, they have been used in many cases in the past. Defining “community” would assist in the implementation of this bill. It would also save valuable court time that would otherwise be spent litigating this definition and determining if a community impact statement were admissible under this provision. If there's no legislative definition, this could result in inconsistent definitions across this country as established by various courts.

As well, the legislation allows individuals to represent the community and to read community impact statements in court. Providing greater legislative guidance to the bill as to who can speak on behalf of a community would again save valuable court time that would otherwise be spent deciding these issues. It would also give community groups, the Crown, and victims certainty in knowing that they can speak on their behalf at sentencing hearings.

Our third concern relates to how complaints at provincial agencies and bodies will impact the current provincial complaint mechanisms and the resources that will be required. It's unclear whether this provision does more than affirm the rights of victims to take advantage of the current existing complaint mechanisms. If this section is meant to do more than affirm already-existing provincial complaint mechanisms, some clarity is required. This section will undoubtedly result in an increase in complaints to provincial bodies and agencies in this province and elsewhere. Some of that is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but we do need to plan for this.

Resources and time will be required to clearly define the complaint process. For example, victims programs and services will need to develop materials and information that will set out the various complaint mechanisms available, including complaints about police agencies and crown prosecutors. It will also have to determine how is best to distribute the information. Alberta's Victims of Crime Act requires the director of victims services to provide information to victims who they feel have not been treated in accordance with our act in order to resolve their concern. Work will have to be done to determine how the victims bill of rights will impact the work of our director when a victim files a complaint.

Finally, Alberta asks that the Government of Canada consider a longer coming-into-force period for this legislation. In addition to the rights granted for the victims bill, it also contains amendments of the evidentiary provisions found in the code. For example, the availability of testimonial aids such as screens during the act of evidence would need to be explained in Alberta to allow them to be accessible as required by this bill.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-32, the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime helps victims individually and collectively. Individually, we speak with victims every day, answering their questions and addressing their complaints. Collectively, we help victims by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

Since the office opened in 2007, one of the top issues that victims have consistently raised is that of victims' rights. The development of nationally consistent victims' rights has been a priority of ours for several years. In June 2013 I made 29 recommendations to the Department of Justice as part of its public consultation on developing a victims bill of rights. These recommendations stem from interactions with thousands of victims and the feedback and input of interested stakeholders who shared their views and wishes with our office. Following the tabling of the bill in April 2014, my office released a response that assessed how the bill addressed our recommendations as well as other issues important to victims. I have provided copies of my remarks to the committee, as well as documentation that outlines in detail my recommendations on the victims bill of rights. Given time constraints, I won't discuss all of my recommendations, but I will highlight a view amendments that I believe are needed to strengthen the bill.

The bill recognizes the tireless work and effort of the victims and victim advocates who have fought for change in Canada for many years. I commend the Government of Canada for seeking the participation of victims in developing this bill, and would hope to see a similar approach taken in the future on other significant policy or legislative changes affecting victims of crime.

This bill marks a significant achievement, but it needs to be strengthened to more effectively address the full breadth of victims' needs and concerns. To strengthen the bill, the rights of victims must be enhanced throughout the criminal justice process, starting at the time of crime, through the courts, and through to post-conviction and conditional release. My recommendations aim to further strengthen the treatment of victims in terms of their rights to be informed, considered, protected, and supported.

One of the most basic rights we would expect a victim to have is the right to information. This bill provides victims the right to request information about the justice system, their role within it, and the services and programs available to them. This would include the right to receive information about the investigation and proceedings, and certain information about an offender or an accused.

While the bill provides for increased rights to information, it does not outline who is responsible for providing that information at all stages. I recommend that the victims be automatically provided at time of crime with clear information about their rights under the bill, including what information they are entitled to receive and who is responsible for providing it, and at what point. Furthermore, victims should be able to receive this information in the format of their choice.

Victims also want information about the status of the offender as they serve their sentence. The victims bill of rights does provide victims with rights to information about the offender, yet with some simple amendments, it could be more responsive to victims' needs and concerns. For instance, the bill gives victims automatic access to a recent photograph of the offender prior to parole or conditional release. I recommend that this should also apply in cases where the offender is on an escorted temporary absence pass.

The bill does not provide sufficient measures for recognizing and addressing the importance of providing victims with choice and options. For example, there are no provisions providing victims with options of how they wish to attend a parole hearing in order to accommodate either their personal circumstances, which may make it difficult to travel, or their anxieties and fears that may make attending a parole hearing in person impossible. I recommend that the bill be amended to provide victims with the right to choose how they will attend a parole hearing and/or present a victim statement, be it in person, by video or teleconference via closed circuit television, or through the use of other secure, reasonable, and available technologies.

As well, under the bill victims may listen to an audio recording of a parole hearing in cases where they are unable to attend. I recommend that victims should have the option of listening to audio recordings of hearings regardless of whether or not they attend. This is unnecessarily restrictive. We have heard from many victims who were able to attend a parole hearing in person but found the experience so taxing that they could no longer recall all details of the hearing. These victims should also be afforded access to audio recordings.

During court and parole hearings, victims want opportunities to have their views heard and considered, particularly in relation to safety and security concerns. This speaks to victims participatory rights.

The victims bill of rights states that all victims have the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system that affect the victim's rights and to have those views considered.

The victims bill of rights provides victims with the additional right to have their safety concerns considered at bail hearings. While this provides victims with increased rights to participate, the bill does not provide victims with a mechanism to convey their views and have them considered by the court.

The victims bill of rights also provides measures to help ensure that victims are informed of a plea bargain in cases of serious personal injury offences or murder. Informing victims of a plea bargain is helpful in some respects; however, victims have clearly identified the need to have their views considered before a plea is entered and/or accepted by the court. This is not to suggest that victims should have any veto powers over plea bargains. Rather, it would ensure that victims can exercise their right to convey their views prior to decisions being made by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system.

The victims bill of rights provides measures to enhance the safety and security for victims at trials, including protecting victim information and identity during trial and testimony, allowing testimonial aids such as support persons, and allowing the victim to read a statement outside the court room.

Similar consideration should be applied to ensure the safety and security of victims at parole hearings. Presently victims are not guaranteed separate and secure waiting areas to avoid contact with the offender at parole hearings. I recommend that appropriate measures be established in order to protect victims' sense of safety when attending parole hearings, such as safe and separate waiting areas.

With respect to supporting victims, the victims bill of rights would require judges to consider making a restitution order in all cases. Where victims do not receive their full restitution, they would need to go to civil court to have the remaining amounts paid. Restitution is part of the offender's sentence. The onus should not be with the victims to take steps to collect the monies owed to them.

I recommend that a collection mechanism be in place that would alleviate the responsibility for the victim to pursue outstanding restitution payments.

In terms of enforcement, the victims bill of rights requires each federal department or agency in the criminal justice system to have a complaint process for dealing with breaches of rights. Where victims are not satisfied with the result of these complaint processes, they may file their complaint with authorities that can review complaints in relation to their department or agency.

Our recommendations to strengthen the victims bill of rights speak to two approaches to enforcing either participatory or service rights. These two approaches differ based on the nature of the right and the point of the process where it applies—that is, time of crime, court, or corrections and conditional release or parole.

In the context of service rights or rights to information, the use of internal complaint mechanisms may adequately protect victims' rights, provided these mechanisms are subject to proper oversight. I recommend that any authority with jurisdiction to review complaints have investigative powers to compel federal government departments and agencies to produce information and documents relevant to a complaint and to recommend remedies on specific complaints as well as systemic issues.

I would also recommend that victims have access to legal representation to address the court in order to exercise or enforce their participatory rights under the victims bill of rights.

Legal representation for victims is already allowed in determining access to personal records of victims in cases of sexual assault. This does not mean that the victims have “party status”, but rather that victims would have the ability to address the court only on matters directly related to the rights in this bill.

Some may argue that this would delay the courts and hinder the process of a fair and equitable trial, but I have not found evidence of this in other jurisdictions where victims have access to legal representation to address the courts, as is the case in several states in the United States.

Providing victims with a mechanism to address the court would help ensure that the process fairly considers and protects everyone's interests. Treating victims fairly and ensuring their meaningful participation is critical to increasing public confidence in the criminal justice system and improving the system's overall effectiveness.

In conclusion, I believe bill C-32 is a positive step forward for victims of crime in this country. The bill contains a number of measures that would help improve the system for victims of crime and help to ensure that they are informed, considered, protected, and supported.

At the same time, many of the measures contained could be further strengthened to ensure that victims are treated fairly throughout the criminal justice process.

With the implementation of this bill, I encourage the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories in establishing appropriate evaluation mechanisms to ensure the victims of crimes are better protected and have a stronger voice in our justice system.

Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Lise Lebel, President, Fondation Katherine Beaulieu]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

The organization I am representing today is the Fondation Katherine Beaulieu. Our primary mission is to provide awareness and education to people about the consequences of driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs.

We provide lectures and information kiosks as well as booths to measure blood alcohol concentration. In the near future, we would like to further develop our support for families. It was therefore important for us to be able to make a presentation here so that we can highlight some important amendments in Bill C-32.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, victims of criminal acts should also have rights, but just which rights are they? The Charter speaks of life, liberty and security of the person. Clearly, to no insignificant extent, a number of victims lose these rights entirely after a criminal act in which they were unfortunately involved.

Under the Canada Evidence Act, the spouse of a person charged is not obliged, in common law, to testify against that person. How is it that, still today, we are subject to that shameful kind of law, based on very old decisions that set so-called precedents? Is it not high time to see that justice is done in all fairness, to level the playing field and, most of all, to show respect to all the victims who are constantly experiencing the repercussions of the crimes that have been committed?

To clarify the situation, you should know that the spouse of an accused person cannot currently be compelled by a prosecutor to testify in a criminal trial involving that spouse's husband or wife. This is the case even if the testimony is crucial to the prosecution of serious charges, such as murder or impaired driving causing death or bodily harm. Of course, there are certain exceptions to that rule.

Our organization agrees with the amendments proposed in Bill C-43, which obliges spouses to testify in all cases. These amendments reflect a systematic trend towards providing crown prosecutors with access to all relevant evidence. Of course, we would not be the only country to adopt this new rule because other countries, such as Australia, have already done so.

Let us not be taken in. We all know that offenders, assisted by their lawyers, of course, use all possible means to try to make a mockery of justice. That does not include all the occasions on which they perjure themselves during their testimony in order to improve their chances of a discharge or to reduce the penalty to be imposed on them. The reality is that horror stories are heard in courtrooms each and every day. Victims are too often relegated to the background in the administration of justice.

With the excuse that offenders have rights, victims are kept in the dark about the circumstances of the crime; a number of them will never know the truth. With the excuse that criminals have rights, all possible evidence is never submitted to the court in its entirety. Let us no longer let criminals use their spouse as a free pass that allows them to stay ahead of their victims.

When a crime is committed, do not forget that the most odious act is not the act itself; it is in not recognizing that we committed it, that we, and only we, are responsible and that nothing, no one, can take responsibility for, or try to conceal, our errors.

Above all, let us not remain silent in the face of the moral and financial repercussions that victims must face day in, day out. For the most part, they have always been decent, fair and law-abiding. After each day in court, they return home bruised even more because, once again, the system has given them nothing.

There will be those who tell us that each Canadian citizen has the right to be tried in a just and fair way, whatever the cost. The reality is that everyone's weekly salary is chopped up in order to pay the costs that the guilty incur. Moreover, each victim has to absorb a part of the financial imbalance caused by the crime they suffered.

Did you know that a study published in 2011 estimated the real costs of crime at about $99.6 billion, of which 83% is assumed by victims?

Our judges rarely order financial restitution to be paid to victims, except in the cases of material loss or theft: they consider that offenders are not able to take on such a requirement because they lack the means to do so. However, our correctional system always leans towards rehabilitating criminals. The talk is to successfully reintegrate them into society so that they can become law-abiding citizens once again.

The reality is that criminals have always had the benefit of much more support from our system than victims receive. They are supported until the very end of their sentences in order to improve as much as possible their chances of regaining their independence. With those optimal conditions, the offenders' ability to obtain credit should improve with time so that they would be able to compensate their victims.

With Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, victims might have the right to ask the court to study the possibility of ordering restitution and, if the restitution is not paid, to have the order considered a civil court judgment. Would it not be appropriate for offenders to be required to periodically deposit amounts of money for the benefit of their victims?

Would that not be a good way to institute a form of restorative justice for everyone's benefit, for the benefit of our society? The financial assistance from the offender could allow him at the same time to take some responsibility for the mistake he made. I myself suffered the loss of my child in a traffic accident, so you will understand that my suffering will never be reckoned in dollars.

However, the reality is that, since that fateful day, I have had to rebuild my life in terms of the financial losses I have suffered since. Going back, going back to a comfortable life, is impossible because, too often, life breaks us for ever and leaves us only with the bare minimum we need to keep going. Often, that takes the form of several years of hard labour, days of sacrifice that amount to nothing, because someone somewhere made the decision to flout a basic rule of life, to respect others.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 50. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 20, 2014, we are resuming our consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

We have a number of witnesses, but before we get to the witnesses, I will apologize. We had a vote in the House of Commons, so we got here as soon as we could. We will give everybody the 10 minutes they've been allotted, which will take us to not quite 5 o'clock, and then we go to 5:30.

What is the camera in here? Oh, the aboriginal channel is covering the meeting, and it's not televised.

I suggest we do the first round, but with plenty of time, so you can share within your party. It's about 12 minutes if we do it and everything works out right. So if you have people whom you want to ask all or part of the questions, just pass your time on. There'll be two rounds for the Conservatives and one for the NDP and one for the Liberals.

Thank you very much for coming, witnesses. Let me introduce you and then we will go ahead based on the list on the agenda. We have, from the Fondation Katherine Beaulieu, Ms. Lise Lebel, president; from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. Sue O'Sullivan, federal ombudsman for victims of crime; from the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre, we have Mr. Kennedy himself; from Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, we have Ms. Tracy O'Hearn and Ms. Alyssa Flaherty-Spence; and by video conference from the Government of Alberta, we have the Honourable Jonathan Denis, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, with us, which we really appreciate. Monsieur Denis, merci for joining us this afternoon.

With that, we're going right to your 10 minutes, Ms. Lebel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, everyone, for coming today, and for those presentations and the questions.

Quickly, committee, here's my plan; you can tell me if I'm wrong. But you don't have to tell me right now, because we're running out of time.

Today is October 30. We have witnesses for November 4 and 6, which fall next week on Tuesday and Thursday, and on November 18, because those witnesses basically got moved because of “the issue”.

Now, of the witnesses who were asked, the only ones who are not coming.... I thought we had more, but we actually only have one province coming. The Government of Alberta is coming, by video conference. Quebec has said no; P.E.I. has said no; B.C. is sending a letter; and we haven't had a response from Ontario yet.

I'm proceeding with that. After that is over on November 18, I would like to go back, on November 20, to our miscellaneous bill for an hour. There is information still coming. The clerk is going to follow up on why we don't have it yet, but we're going to get it. We'll tentatively have an hour on November 20 for that miscellaneous bill. I don't think it's going to take us more than an hour.

Then for the second hour we'll have a subcommittee meeting on agenda to look at what is coming next. That would allow me and you and any independents to bring forward any amendments to the bill we're dealing with now, Bill C-32. Then we will do clause by clause on November 25, and move forward on whatever is new on November 27, and we will decide upon that on November 20.

Here's what I want. We've had four bills referred to us. Bill S-2 is from the House. It's a statutory instruments piece, and is more technical than anything else. Then we have three private members' bills: Bill C-587, which has a February 18 date to it; Bill C-590, which has a March 9 date; and just as of last night, Bill S-221, which was unanimously passed by the House.

My suggestion is that if you people could get together to figure out which ones we could do...we could do Bill S-221 very quickly. Work it out. Come to see me about what you'd like to do and when. We'll have that discussion at our meeting on the agenda on November 20, and we'll know what we'll be doing till Christmastime, if that is acceptable to everybody.

Is that okay?

Yes, Mr. Casey?