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.

[Alain Fortier]

Bill C-32 gives a good base. Of course, we would always like more. In my remarks, I talked about the need to put reasonable timelines on the process. I would like the bill of rights to contain more rights. However, if it did contain more rights, would it then pass?

The bill of rights should be adopted as it stands. Then, depending on any problems that might arise, we would always be able to improve it as a result of the comments from people working with it on the ground.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The legislation states that “a victim may”, and especially that, “the Crown may”. That's not necessarily a right; it's almost a privilege.

What could we do to make Bill C-32 much more concrete and help the province move forward? I am not talking about financial assistance, although funding is a major issue. I am really talking about rights.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I have only five minutes, I will try to keep it brief. I hope the answers will also be brief.

I will start with you, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fortier.

Generally speaking, the provinces are very interested in Bill C-32. Quebec, among others, is very clearly saying it is prepared to work with the federal government. In fact, it is already laying the groundwork to realize victims' rights.

We often hear the criticism that the rights are rather conditional. Bill C-32 should be further crystallized, so that as much can be done as is already being done in the province.

How could this bill improve victims' rights? What can we do to help provinces move forward and become true partners? The rights are unclear.

Do you have any comments?

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

However, no funding is attached to this bill. That's what I was trying to tell you. Bill C-32 is perfect with regard to what you are saying because it will create a feeling of safety for victims. The issue is that it does not come with any funding.

The Manitoba Minister of Justice told us that it was very nice that the federal government was adopting this bill, but that the government would simply pass the responsibility on to the provinces, which would have to deal with this on their own. We are talking about delays and justice system issues, but if the government is adopting a bill and it really cares about victims' rights, it should walk the talk, as we say in such cases.

Currently, none of those rights are guaranteed. The victim files a complaint, but we don't even know where this complaint will end up and who will examine it. That was my point.

Mr. Tremblay, do you have anything to say about this?

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

—of the London Abused Women's Centre.

First of all, thank you for being here and thank you for the good work you and your organization do to work with the victims of abuse.

You mentioned that you would like to say something about the restitution orders provision of Bill C-32 and also about the spousal immunity provisions of Bill C-32, so please tell us.

[Grand Chief Harvey Yesno, Grand Chief, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Good afternoon, and thank you.

On behalf of the Chiefs of Ontario, we appreciate the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We believe that our experiences as first nations people in Canada, a demographic that's largely over-represented in the criminal justice system, as both offenders and victims, will bring a uniquely first nation perspective and insight to inform the committee.

The Chiefs of Ontario is a political forum representing 133 first nations within the province of Ontario. We appear before you today to make clear our position on Bill C-32. While the proposed victims' bill of rights is introduced to give victims of crime a more effective voice in the criminal justice system, we respectfully submit that it can better reflect the unique circumstances and needs of first nations persons who are victims of crime.

It is important to examine the issues of victimization and victims of crime in a broader context to fully understand its significance in relation to first nations people, persons, and communities. We invite you to consider the following facts and statistics.

A 2006 report entitled “Victimization and offending among the Aboriginal population in Canada” found that both crime and victimization rates are several times higher among first nations persons than non-first nation persons. This 2006 report found that a first nation person was three times more likely than a non-first nation person to be a victim of violent crime. Violent crimes committed against a first nation person are more likely to be committed by someone they know, such as a relative, friend, or neighbour, compared to non-first nation person. Generally on-reserve crime rates in 2004 were approximately three times higher than rates in the rest of Canada. The difference is even greater for violent crime, with an on-reserve rate that is eight times the violent crime rate of the rest of the country. A first nation person is more likely to be as victim of homicide than a non-first nation person. Between 1997 and 2000, the average homicide rate for first nations persons was 8.8 per 100,000 people, almost seven times higher than the rate for non-first nations persons of 1.3 per 100,000. The authors of this 2006 report indicated that it's possible that the statistics on the victimization of first nations persons may be even higher among vulnerable first nations groups.

It is to be noted that the current Conservative government has stated that it has completed 34 reports since 2006, out of the 40 total reports completed between 1996 and 2013, on the issue of missing and murdered first nations women and girls. While these reports focus on a specific subset of first nations citizens, namely first nations women and girls, they do highlight and support the disproportionate statistics of victimization within first nations communities.

The causes of the higher rates of crime and victimization among first nations communities are varied and complex. Continued colonialization and systemic discrimination against first nations persons have provoked traumas that have carried through successive generations and have manifested themselves through addictions, physical violence, and sexual abuse.

Victims of crime are not homogenous group. As such, the proposed Bill C-32 must recognize that first nations persons face unique difficulties within the criminal justice system and society at large.

The proposed victims' bill of rights has the potential to become a meaningful tool to reduce the over-representation of first nations victims of crime if it is amended to be inclusive of the following considerations.

First, the unique circumstances of first nations persons and communities that are victims of crime should be considered. If passed, Bill C-32 would allow the addition of the words “and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community” to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. With this addition, it is our view that the consideration of the unique circumstances of first nations persons before the courts as offenders, as set out by the court in the Gladue decision and later affirmed in R. v. Ipeelee, should be extended to first nations victims and related first nations communities. Further, this information should be presented through independent counsel to the judiciary for consideration during sentencing.

In the 1999 decision of R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its interpretation of paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, acknowledged that within the Canadian criminal justice system, first nations persons differ from non-first nations persons because many aboriginal people are victims of systemic and direct discrimination.

It is clear that unique and dynamic relationships exist between first nations offenders, victims, and community. As stated in Gladue, the appropriateness of a particular sanction is largely determined by considering the needs of the victims and the community, as well as the offender.

One recommendation we have here is that a specific reference to aboriginal persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal victims, be added to clause 15 of the victims bill of rights and to subsection 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code.

Another consideration is representation of the voices of first nations victims and first nations communities. Our recommendation there is that aboriginal persons and communities who are victims of crime should be provided with their own independent legal counsel to represent their input in order to ensure that their unique aboriginal circumstances are represented within any criminal justice matter. This should be reflected in clause 27 of the victims bill of rights.

Another consideration, where first nations victims and communities are concerned, is that first nations-based restorative justice mechanisms must be utilized. Our recommendation there is for the addition of a provision stating that any criminal justice matter in which an aboriginal victim and/or community is involved should be referred to a restorative justice mechanism should the victim so choose.

Another consideration is support for first nations communities through programs and services specific to the needs of first nations victims. Our recommendation there is that a federal first nations victims justice fund be created to support aboriginal programs and services that respond specifically to the urgent need for adequate and culturally relevant programs and services for first nations victims of crime and their families, similar to that of Ontario's victims justice fund, and be used to administer various programs and provide grants to community agencies to assist victims of crime.

Finally, another consideration is addressing the systemic barriers for first nations victims. Our recommendation there is that a specific reference to the provision of support mechanisms for first nations victims and communities be added to the victims bill of rights.

In closing, we wish to reiterate our view that the considerations that we bring forward to you today with respect to the proposed victims bill of rights have the potential to begin to address the overrepresentation of first nations victims of crime. For almost 20 years, much work has been done to address the growing problem of first nations overrepresentation. We firmly believe that amending the proposed victims bill of rights to consider the specific and unique circumstances of first nations victims and communities will be a step forward in reconciling the overrepresentation of first nations persons within the Canadian criminal justice system, as offenders and as victims, and a move towards healing first nations persons and communities.

Thank you.

[Frank Tremblay, Vice-President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin]

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for having us.

My name is Frank Tremblay, and I am the vice-president of VASAM.

Continuing with our presentation, I will speak to the issue of restitution orders.

In cases of sexual assault, society often thinks that the damage is only psychological. By all accounts, there is always psychological damage, and it varies widely from one victim to another. However, the aspect of financial damage is rarely addressed. The community probably believes, wrongly, that financial damage is minimal, because victims have access to the same services that attackers do. Here are some consequences of sexual assault that can have a financial impact: loss of productivity at work, occasionally followed by loss of employment; marital problems, often leading to separation; high consulting fees for health professionals; problems with alcohol and drug addiction, gaming and prescription drug use; health problems; and sexually transmitted diseases.

With the bill of rights, victims will now be able to apply for restitution. Compensation is not intended to make victims wealthier but, rather, to assist them in coping with their ordeal.

We would like to underscore two very important points for us. First, if the judge does not award restitution, the reasons should be clearly set out in the file. Second, judges must not take into consideration the attacker's ability to pay. We believe that these points are critical in order to guarantee staying power for this section and prevent certain judges from wriggling out of it for spurious reasons, somewhat like the current situation with the victim surcharge.

We firmly believe that reparation automatically involves restitution. By doing this, we also reduce the cost to society of providing services to victims, because those who caused the damage will be responsible for reducing the effects of their behaviour, in accordance with the polluter-pay principle.

We would like to comment on clause 52(1) of Bill C-32, which replaces subsection 4(2) of the Canada Evidence Act so that it reads as follows: “No person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused.”

Statistics show that, in 27% of sexual assault cases, the perpetrator is a spouse or ex-spouse. As a result, in 27% of cases, the woman cannot testify on behalf of the victim, who is usually a child. It is sometimes true that the woman—or, conversely, the man—is unaware of the acts committed. However, it is also sometimes true that the mother is aware of the act and does not assist her child. How often do children ask their mother for help and the mother refuses to act, by downplaying the behaviour or refusing to see the truth? We believe that the change to this section will benefit victims.

Times have changed, and we believe that if a mother refuses to testify, she is, to some extent, complicit in the spouse's actions. One question remains to be answered: if the law did not exist, what would the statistics be for crimes committed by a spouse?

Let us now turn to the notion of the right to a reasonable timeframe.

Despite all the positive aspects of this bill, we would like to suggest an additional section. The victims bill of rights should include a section entitled “Right to a reasonable timeframe”. We know that the judicial process can take three to seven years and that hearings are often postponed, which is discouraging to victims. The process takes much too long for victims, who must start their process of healing but not forget what they went through. We believe that a reasonable timeframe would be between one and one-and-a-half years, at most.

We cannot forget that we are working with human beings. We believe there should be a mechanism for speeding up cases involving crimes against people. The longer we wait to hear these cases, the greater the impact on the victims, and the longer and more costly the healing process.

In conclusion, we congratulate the federal government for its leadership and thank it for its work over the past few years towards better protecting victims. Whether it is increasing the sentences for pedophiles or proposing a victims bill of rights, you have shown great consideration for victims. We believe the Quebec government should look to your leadership in victim assistance, particularly on the statute of limitations issue.

Yet again today, with this bill, you are sending a clear message to victims: “Report your attacker and we will support you. The support will take the form of a system that will enable you to participate in the judicial process; inform you of your rights; make it easier for you to testify at trial; protect you not only during your testimony, but also once your attacker has been released; and consider compensating you for your financial loss.”

We want to reiterate our unconditional support for Bill C-32. We must always bear in mind that the proposed bill does not deal with property crimes, but crimes against people. If it were a stolen car or bike, or a break-in, the solution would be simple: pay to repair or replace the items. In the case of a victim of sexual assault, the solution is not so simple and quick. Often, years can go by before victims open up about what happened to them and start talking about it. Then, with assistance, they can begin a healing process that may take their entire lives.

We must remember that, behind all victims, there is a painful history with wounds and traumas that will always impact their lives and the people around them. With Bill C-32, we must assist and protect victims. The greater the protection we provide, the more likely victims will be to denounce their attackers, and this will make our streets and communities safer places to be.

[Alain Fortier, President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin]

Good afternoon everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

Finally, a bill that recognizes the rights of victims!

Established a year ago, VASAM is an association that assists men who have been victims of sexual assault. Although barely a year old, our young association has already accomplished a great deal for male victims. We are the first organization working to assist male victims of sexual assault in Quebec.

We already have a few hundred individual and corporate members. Further, we work in conjunction with organizations that assist female victims of sexual assault. We believe that, in 2014, sexual assault is no longer just an issue for women or men, but for victims.

Our organization's mission is to raise awareness among the public and political bodies regarding the problem of sexual assault against men during their childhood; direct and guide men towards appropriate resources to help them survive the trauma and health problems from which victims suffer long after the assault; and encourage men of all ages who have been victims of sexual assault to request assistance in order to break out of their isolation and retake control of their lives.

When it comes to victims' rights, our association responds to all draft legislation, always asking for reaffirmation and reinforcement of victims' rights and demanding that legislation be brought in line with the rights of perpetrators.

Today, we are pleased to tell you the reasons for our wholehearted support for Bill C-32.

It is well-established that, whenever we request a better legislative framework to protect victims, groups that provide assistance to perpetrators argue that we are interfering with the offenders' rights. Whenever we request tougher sentences, such organizations say we are automatically anti-rehabilitation. Regardless of the approach, it is often the victim who feels guilty for requesting more information, greater security, involvement in the process or restitution.

[Megan Walker]

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

I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today as a women's and victims' rights advocate to speak in favour of Bill C-32. I think it's really timely that I'm here today, particularly in light of the victim blaming and shaming by eight complainants toward a CBC celebrity.

Most of the work done by the London Abused Women's Centre is providing counselling support and advocacy to girls over the age of 12, and women who are abused by their intimate partners. But we also provide support services to families whose loved ones have been murdered by men that they trusted to love them. As you may know, we also provide services to prostituted women.

As you may know, Statistics Canada reports that half of all Canadian women, since the age of 16, have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence. You are also likely aware that according to the Department of Justice the economic impact of domestic violence in Canada amounts to $7.4 billion per year, with $6 billion of that attributed to victim costs.

For far too long it has been our belief that we have focused on the rights of the accused and the convicted. At the London Abused Women's Centre we see firsthand, every single day, both the incredible pain and suffering of women and children who have been victimized, as well as their courage and strength as they try to move forward toward a life of freedom, peace, and healing.

We need to recognize that for many reasons most sexual assault and domestic violence victims will never call the police or enter the criminal justice system. When they do, the conviction rate in Ontario of domestic violence cases that go to trial is only 1%. There are many, many reasons for this.

The courts, as you know, move very slowly. The longer it takes to move through the courts, the more likely it is that abused women will either not appear to testify, or will perjure themselves on the stand. For some, they have moved on in their lives by the time their case makes its way to trial. For others, they have gone through counselling, as have their abusers, and they have reconciled. Many still remain too terrified to go to court.

In London right now the superior court is taking approximately one year before it gets to a preliminary trial, and two years before it gets to final trial stage. Provincial courts are taking anywhere from nine to fifteen months before they hear cases.

I have read a recommendation from some that is proposing to allow victims status as an intervenor in the proceedings. This has huge unintended consequences that will make it much more difficult for abused women to access the courts. It would further backlog and delay the court proceedings. There are huge costs associated with that, and you should know that the criminal justice system currently bears a cost of $545 million per year. And there are feelings of pressure, guilt, and inadequacy on the part of victims regarding their performance, when they are asked to participate at that level.

Abused women are fearful of their abusive partners, particularly that they will represent themselves in their defence and that women will face further abuse during cross-examination by their abusers. Bill C-32 specifically addresses this issue in proposed subsection 486.3(2), which orders that the accused not personally cross-examine the witness, unless the judge or justice is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires the accused to personally conduct the cross-examination. From our perspective, this is a great positive and removes a huge barrier for abused women in accessing the criminal justice system.

Further, this bill legislates protection, security measures, and opportunities for testimony for women and victims outside of the court.

Accountability is crucial to the work we do at the London Abused Women's Centre. We are of the view that the creation of an external adjudication process is not only a costly duplication of bureaucracy, but it is completely unnecessary in addressing victim concerns and complaints. We say this because of our own experiences in working collaboratively with the criminal justice service providers who we work with in London. We therefore believe that the federal departments and agencies that are recommended in resolving the issues are equipped to address complaints and concerns, provided they are given clear expectations as to their roles.

What we think is required to assist victims is a complaints mechanism that is well understood, transparent, and accessible. We recommend that all victims be provided with information, including a complaints process and contact information at the first point of access. We further recommend that all victim service community partners be provided with similar information that we can post online and provide directly to the women and victims we work with.

For safety, protection, and emotional well-being, victims must be kept informed not only during the active criminal process but during incarceration and post-incarceration of the offenders. We know that currently, despite the very best intentions, victims are sometimes forgotten at certain stages of the process, and this may increase the risk of serious injury and even lethality to those victims. We recognize that including in this bill the guidelines for communicating with victims is a positive and much-needed inclusion.

It's also important to recognize that while crown attorneys across this country would have a responsibility to inform and consult with victims, we do not want, under any circumstances, victims influencing crowns to drop charges. Prior to the mandatory charge policies in this country, abused women were often coerced by their abusive partners to drop charges, to meet with crowns, and to pressure the crowns to drop those charges once they were laid. Men's violence against women is a criminal offence, and like other criminal offences it should not ever be left up to victims to lay or drop charges.

I really do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and there is much more to say. If there is an opportunity to respond to questions, I would particularly like to comment on issues around spousal immunity and restitution orders.

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 49, on Thursday, October 30, 2014. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 20, 2014, we are resuming 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 here with us today. From the London Abused Women's Centre, we have Ms. Walker, the executive director. We also have Ms. Jong, as an individual. From Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin, we have Monsieur Fortier and Monsieur Tremblay. From the Criminal Lawyers' Association, we have Mr. Krongold, a member of the board of directors and chair of the legislative committee. And from the Chiefs of Ontario, we have Grand Chief Yesno, which is a great name, and with him is Ms. Restoule, the director of the justice sector.

We're going to start with presentations in that order.

Ms. Walker, I know that you handed these out, but the rule here, unfortunately, is that these need to be bilingual to be handed out officially—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to each of our witnesses.

Ms. Nagy, it's good to see you again. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership in helping the victims of human trafficking. We last met at the Freedom Walk in Toronto a few weeks ago, and you made a very inspiring speech there. I know you've written at least two books to help police officers and those who counsel the victims of human trafficking. I think it's very important that we acknowledge that work that you and your organization have done.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that you were happy with the new section 486.31 of the Criminal Code as proposed by clause 17 of Bill C-32. I note it provides for the non-disclosure of the identity of a witness, in a number of circumstances, and requires the court to consider whether the witness needs protection from intimidation or retaliation, whether there's a need to protect the security of anyone who is known to the witness—I guess a family member, or friend, or associate of the witness—and also for the purposes of encouraging the reporting of offences.

Can you tell us why that's important to victims of human trafficking and the people who you serve?

[Lucien Landry]

Yes, we fully support it. In fact, we had expressed to you our support for Bill C-32 in its entirety.

With the chair's permission, I'd like to say that we were forced to seek out a really innovative solution in light of our meagre resources. What we did was use community agency support programs to access the expertise of university law faculties. And thanks to Pro Bono Québec, we were able to get law students working with us to help prepare our comments.

I'm speaking to the committee chair. The students are in exams right now. They have to finish what they are working on and present it to us. We could then forward it to you. We saw that Bill C-32 has 56 pages, which is an enormous amount of information for us to cover. So we got creative and partnered with law faculties to help us prepare the recommendations and questions we have for you.

We've told you today what we plan to do, but we are, of course, requesting your permission to send the document to you, as well as to the government party and the official opposition.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Landry, I'd like to discuss a much-talked-about topic with you, the victim surcharge.

We noted your request for additional funding.

The victim surcharge is an amount paid to the provinces to fund agencies that advocate for victims. The surcharge has come under fire by those who argue that some criminals cannot afford to pay it.

In the situation you talked about, clergy members or the clergy ended up having to pay the surcharge. It's a different story when individuals can't afford to pay the surcharge.

Do you support the mandatory victim surcharge, as proposed in Bill C-32?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I will try to do that.

I would like to thank all the witnesses joining us today.

Many similarities can be found in the various perspectives that each of you presented, but what distinguishes them is the specific expertise each of your organizations brings. My sincerest thanks.

I'd like to say a few words to Mr. Landry.

We have been in contact for a long time now, so I've heard about the hardship that the Duplessis orphans have endured. I feel for you tremendously, and I thank you for what you are doing. Your heart knows no bounds.

Thank you to you, Ms. Handy. It's fantastic what you and your organization are doing.

Teresa and Dawn, thank you for what you do for first nations. It is awesome and scary at the same time, because from what I heard, it's not easy to find solutions. But we are all trying. I'll stay positive today.

Ms. Gaudreault, you've hit the nail on the head. I believe you identified the aspects of Bill C-32 that I hear people complain about the most.

While you were talking to us about the problems in Bill C-32, I went back over a legislative summary prepared for us by the Legal and Social Affairs Division of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service. One statistic really struck me. In 2008 alone, the social and economic costs of crime in Canada, for victims, totalled $99.6 billion.

Of course, the figure represents not just the tangible costs of crime—such as medical treatment, loss of income and productivity, and damage to property—but also intangible costs. Often the hardest to quantify, the intangible costs associated with crime have a tremendous impact; victims have to endure stress, pain, loss of quality of life and so forth. According to the research, victims bear most of the costs arising from crime: 83% of both the tangible and intangible costs. It goes without saying what an enormous burden that is, not to mention the fact that our justice system is not always what it should be.

Young lawyers just starting out find the system intimidating, so you can imagine how it feels for a victim. The first day the committee heard from victims on the legislation, Mr. Laferrière, I believe, told us that he, too, felt the bill lacked teeth. To sum it up, a whole lot of wishing is going on.

He suggested that clause 20 be taken out of the bill. In terms of amendments, I'd like to know whether you consider removing clause 20 a reasonable solution. The whole preamble of the bill explains what the legislation does and what rights it confers, but the legislation goes on to specify that it does not apply in this circumstance or that circumstance. That is my first question.

I think you said that Ontario's and Manitoba's systems were much further along. I think Mr. Murie, of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, told us that 90% of the bill would have to be applied by the provinces. In light of that, then, I am curious to know how Manitoba's and Ontario's systems are better.

[Janet Handy, Executive Director, Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre Niagara]

Thank you.

Madam Chair and honourable members, the right honourable clerk, and fellow presenters, thank you so much for having me here.

Bill C-32 provides victims of crime with a right to information, a right to participation, a right to protection, and a right to restitution.

Many people think of victims as adults who, given the right supports, will be able to more easily navigate and to be better represented in our judicial system with this new bill. However, on behalf of the board of directors, I'm here to represent child and youth victims who disclose their experiences at the Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre Niagara, as their needs are addressed by the victims bill of rights.

Because we are speaking about children, we must begin with the right to participation, something not automatically assumed for children to be a right.

When we think of the needs of child victims, we must recognize the great courage it takes for children and youth to come forward and to speak with adults about their experiences. These are young victims of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, those who have experienced Internet luring, and those who are victimized due to the witnessing of violence.

There is a particular kind of courage needed, especially when these crimes against their persons have been perpetrated within the adult world and more often than not carried out by people they know and trust. Further to this courage, we must recognize their unique developmental needs within the judicial system as child and youth victims when they're expected to disclose their experiences to yet another group of adults who they hope will redress the wrongs done to them.

We also need to be cognizant of the secondary victims, those non-offending family members who are often reeling from the new information that the most vulnerable member of their family has been violated in some way.

Child advocacy centres are at the forefront of providing coordinated services that increase the sense of safety for children and youth and their families by recognizing the age-specific developmental needs required to participate in the justice system.

The Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre applauds the Government of Canada for recognizing the need to create the victims bill of rights. This bill strengthens and underpins the collaborative mandates of child advocacy centres across Canada.

The federal government has shown its commitment to supporting victims of crime, particularly the most vulnerable among us—our children and youth—with its support of the development of new child advocacy centres and enhancements of existing child advocacy centres across the country.

As CACs aim to minimize the trauma of being a child and youth victim of crime, the government's commitment to enact this bill emphasizes the critical importance of ensuring that our laws, programs, and policies reflect the basic principle that every victim, no matter what age—but especially our children, who depend upon the adult world to speak for them—should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect and can in fact effectively participate in the justice system.

In regard to the right to protection, there is, based on police reports, a significant increase over the last couple of years of incidents of sexual violations against children. It raises an alarm that while other crime may be down, sexual assaults and in particular sexual exploitation crimes against children are increasing, so for these victims it's of little comfort to say that crime is down overall.

As the incidence of child victimization increases, so does the need to protect and strengthen the disclosure opportunities for child victims. Our centre is named after Kristen French, one of several victims of Paul Bernardo. The Paul Bernardo case revealed the need for more collaboration among investigative services.

Likewise, the Cornwall public inquiry and the Jeffrey Baldwin inquiry revealed the need for accountability on behalf of victim safety throughout the justice system, among policing, child welfare, mental health services, forensic evaluation, and judicial professionals.

By addressing through collaborative protocols the specialized developmental nature and unique circumstances of being a child and youth victim of crime, children, youth, and their families should be better able to navigate the justice system at large.

While the justice partners have mandates requiring the gathering of evidence, protection, and the well-being of child victims, and the justice system seeks to redress the wrongs done and balance the scales of justice between offenders and victims, we believe this new bill, as it finds its real-time footing in the courts, will serve to enhance the already-begun collaboration of these services on a nationwide scale to address the special navigational and protection needs of child and youth victims.

Where child advocacy centres can create standardization to the extent possible across the country, they also facilitate the ability to share personal information where there is a legitimate need among collaborating partners involved in investigating these crimes against children and families. These collaborative measures increase protection from further potential harm and trauma while reducing costs for medical attention, lost wages, missed school days, and personal out-of-pocket expenses of being a victim who might otherwise have to travel to many separate places for these services.

CACs attempt to close the loop on the coordinated response of investigators by further connecting children, youth, and non-offending family members with secondary services for mental health and other costs that may be associated with victim autonomy and protection, such as housing, education, and financial supports.

On the right to information, each CAC across Canada—there are 12 now established, 10 more operating as pilot projects and in development, and four communities undertaking feasibility studies—seeks to offer varied levels of collaborative service to child and youth victims, depending on financial, geographic, service capacity, and jurisdictional differences. While there are local community and provincial variations, these services include the provision of information about the investigation process, a safe place for children and youth to disclose abuse in recorded interviews, referrals to community services, short-term counselling, court preparation and accompaniment, assistance in the completion of victim impact statements, and corrections information. Child advocacy centres ensure that these services are carried out by those trained in child and youth specific and trauma-informed victim engagement skills, that they operate in close co-locations or one location, and play a coordinating role to assist the families as they navigate the sometimes overpowering justice system. This approach provides critical and accessible information to child and youth victims and their non-offending family members.

Child advocacy centres ensure standardization, fair treatment, and consistency of jurisdictionally appropriate information across the country. Both the recognized benefits of child advocacy centres and comprehensive research indicate that early and effective investigation and intervention reduces the long-term personal and social costs for victims and their families. CACs balance the priorities of child and youth best interests, well-being, and finding truth and justice with accessible education and understanding of the justice system.

But this brings me to the most difficult topic of the bill, and that is restitution. The work of the CAC staff can greatly reduce the emotional and mental harm to child and youth victims, and their approach can also improve the quality of evidence brought forward in trials. Better evidence can lead to more charges laid, a higher rate of guilty pleas and convictions, and more appropriate sentences and a greater understanding of the potential for long-term support needed by victims in their recovery from such crimes. Effective early investigation and intervention reduces social and personal costs that commonly arise from child abuse left untreated.

The cost of untreated or ongoing abuse impacts were estimated to be close to $15 billion in a 2004 study out of the economics department of the University of Western Ontario. This study did not factor in the cost of child abuse through Internet luring and, due to the age of the study, remains a conservative estimate. The cost of child abuse, therefore, is not just to the victims but to society and its social support systems as well, although the broader burden remains on the shoulders of victims and their families. On this large scale of costs, and without significant changes in our coordinated approach to respond more adequately to victims, individual restitution is almost unattainable, and so restitution and prevention must go hand in hand.

While restitution is a necessary aspect of gaining justice, the greater longer-term hope is a reduction overall in the number of first-time and chronic experiences of child abuse and youth victims of these crimes. Restitution is also, then, a philosophy of justice that seeks to mitigate the expense of crime that victims must endure, while leading to a prevention of and reduction in costs to further victims.

As children's and youth's needs are addressed early on, we have the potential to change the child's life trajectory and increase the awareness adults, children, and youth have about abuse itself and its signs and symptoms, by providing this vital access to disclosure models that are child and youth focused

It is evident that the federal government is committed to ensuring child and youth victims and their families have the proper resources and support when dealing with the various professionals who are tasked with ensuring justice. We applaud the government's continued effort to enshrine children's rights.

To serve the cause of justice, restitution must include the mitigation of real costs, an increase in early intervention, and the creation of standards of victim care in the aftermath of crime. We believe CACs speak to an enhanced model that meets these rights on a basic level, if children have adequate access to disclosure in the first place. But we also need a mandated collaboration to meet these rights in real time and in real lives.

Thank you.