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.

[D/Chief Jill Skinner, Deputy Chief of Police, Victims of Crime Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Good afternoon.

While this legislation certainly does address important principles for victims' assistance, the language of rights employed in the new legislation, combined with the requirement that the rights of victims under the act are to be exercised through the mechanisms provided by law, may make it difficult for victims to identify their enforceable legal rights and corresponding remedies.

We suggest that clear, identifiable, enforceable legal rights and the corresponding mechanisms for exercising these rights will go a long way to assisting victims in navigating the criminal justice system. As Benjamin Perrin stated in his paper entitled “More Than Words”, on Bill C-32, “...a 'right' without a remedy in the event of its breach is no right at all.”

Second, responsibilities for implementing victims' rights are directed to “the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system” and not to specific agencies, which may make it difficult for criminal justice partners to identify their respective legal responsibilities. Added clarity in this regard will direct victims to the appropriate agency and, where necessary, will allow them to take up any concerns through the appropriate complaints mechanism.

As indicated, the police are the most common first point of contact for victims and their families and play a critical role in ensuring victims know their rights. The consequences of inadequate or untimely information can be detrimental to a victim. Victims should have rights to timely, relevant, and easy-to-understand information regarding safety, programs and services, and the investigative, court, correctional, and parole process. In keeping with this goal of ensuring that all victims receive the same high-quality resources and supports, funding and support to police and justice partners will be critical in the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Firstly, to ensure that victims have access to programs and services, consideration should be given to how accurate and consistent information will be provided to victims, particularly those who live in remote locations. The CACP supports the government's intention, as outlined in budget 2014, to “provide victims with online resources that will help individuals access the federal programs and services available for victims of crime”. In addition, the CACP supports the government's intention to create a web portal that will allow victims of federal offenders to view a current photo of the offender prior to the release.

Secondly, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police requests timely and complete information for law enforcement agencies to create victim response enhancements to be integrated within current training. Chiefs of police look to the Government of Canada to coordinate with a training institution—like the Canadian Police Knowledge Network—and to provide funding to develop education and training modules. Consistent federal funding would expedite the process of implementing the Canadian victims bill of rights within the provinces and territories and ensure these important rights can be implemented as immediately as possible.

Thirdly, in order to implement and deliver effective victim services and thereby increase confidence in our justice system, funding for sufficient resources across the country is imperative. The establishment of a police victims support fund, similar to the former police officers recruitment fund, to this initiative would help to provide the necessary supports.

Furthermore, in creating and funding victim resources and services, chiefs of police stress the importance of recognizing the historical trauma, unique awareness of, and respect for tradition and culture of first nations, Inuit, and Métis groups. The Canadian victims bill of rights should respond to the needs of victims in these groups in a holistic and culturally sensitive way. lt should also consider Canada's multicultural composition, specifically in ensuring access to information in diverse languages, which is critical in ensuring meaningful participation by all victims.

The Canadian victims bill of rights should enshrine core enforceable rights of victims of crime and the effective recognition of and respect for a victim's human rights and should ensure that needs, concerns, and interests of victims are valued and considered in a participatory environment.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police victims of crime committee supports the principles advanced by the Canadian victims bill of rights. Chiefs of police stress the importance of ensuring resources are in place to ensure victims across the country clearly understand their enforceable rights and have timely and accurate access to information and services.

The CACP looks forward to continued participation during the consideration and implementation process of the Canadian victims bill of rights. We recognize that the victim-focused approach of Bill C-32 creates a solid foundation for victims and is the first step in enhancing victims' participatory and service rights throughout the criminal justice process.

Merci.

[Chief Paul Smith, Chief of Police, Victims of Crime Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me begin by thanking the chair and members of the standing committee for allowing us to appear today with regard to Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain acts.

This is very important legislation. It is a step forward in victim-focused reform. It should allow victims a greater opportunity to make meaningful representation, and will ultimately instill more confidence in the criminal justice system for victims of crime.

By way of introduction, my name is Paul Smith. I am speaking in my role as vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and I'm also the chief of the Charlottetown Police Service. I am joined by Jill Skinner, deputy chief of the Ottawa Police Service. Both Deputy Skinner and I are also members of the CACP victims of crime committee.

As law enforcement leaders, our focus is always to ensure the safety of our communities, our officers, and the most vulnerable among us. Our members are dedicated to the protection and security of the people of Canada. Likewise, our colleagues in the Canadian Armed Forces proudly serve Canadians by defending our values, interests, and sovereignty, both at home and abroad.

As Canadians, we are all proud of our collective resolve in the face of the senseless acts and threats of last week. We continue to join together in mourning the loss of Warrant Officer Vincent and Corporal Cirillo.

We also wish to recognize the members of the RCMP, the Ottawa Police Service, the House and Senate security staff, and including one of our own CACP members, Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, for their actions last week here in Ottawa.

Much of the work in pursuit of its mandate, “safety and security for all Canadians through innovative police leadership”, is done through the activities and special projects of a number of committees, and through active liaison with ministries in all levels of government having legislative or executive responsibility in law and policing.

Since its inception in May of 2012, the victims of crime committee has demonstrated the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police national policing commitment to ensuring the rights and protection of victims. Representing police at the federal, aboriginal, provincial, and municipal levels, the committee is mandated to enhance the Canadian police community's capacity to respond effectively to the needs of victims of crime.

During the Government of Canada's consultations on its proposal to develop Bill C-32, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed support and commitment in the development and implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Police agencies across Canada share the vision to serve and protect the public. For many individuals, however, their first substantial involvement with police comes when, through unfortunate circumstance, they become the victim of a crime.

Law enforcement agencies, particularly over recent years, have come to understand that achievement of their mission involves appropriate response to the needs of victims of crime. Police personnel are a victim's first point of contact with the criminal justice system, and that interaction is proven to have a lasting impact upon the victim's perspective of the criminal justice system.

Police chiefs across the country recognize that the sooner victims receive assistance, the less traumatic the recovery process will be. The initial response provided by police affects a victim's knowledge of available services and their decision to access this assistance. The sooner a victim receives this information and support, the sooner he or she is able to begin the recovery process. For this reason, the Canadian victims bill of rights should complement law enforcement's existing duties to victims and their families.

All persons have the right to live without being harmed by others. When this right is infringed, law enforcement and all criminal justice authorities have a duty to treat a victim with courtesy, compassion, and respect. These principles are reflected in this new legislation. The proposed Canadian victims bill of rights takes a positive step forward by recognizing the rights of victims on a national level throughout the criminal justice process and by ensuring their voices are heard.

Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act strike a balance between keeping victims informed and preventing undue additional delays in the criminal justice system. The bill also addresses both personal and privacy concerns of victims. By requiring that the victim will always be considered, Bill C-32 strives to change the principles of the criminal justice system with respect to inclusion of victims. However, we believe there are some key areas in which greater clarification would benefit both victims and the criminal justice authorities, both within the proposed legislation and during the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights.

[Timea E. Nagy, Founder and Program Director, Walk With Me Canada Victim Services]

Thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to be back at this committee. I think it's my third time here.

I'm so glad to see everybody in good health. I would like to thank you all, as MPs, leaders, and your staff, for coming back and working hard. We want you to know that we really appreciate it. Again, I'm really happy to see you all in good health.

My name is Timea Nagy. I'm the founder of an agency called Walk With Me Canada Victim Services. I am a survivor of human trafficking, and my agency works mainly on the front line with victims of human trafficking here in Canada. Since 2009 we've assisted up to 300 victims of human trafficking. We brought about 80% of those victims through the whole court process as well.

I am a survivor, and I went to court 17 years ago for my own case. At the time there were no laws about human trafficking. Everything was different. The court system and everything was completely different. Now, 15, 17 years later, when we walk our victims through these doors, we see differences. I believe we've grown together.

We have also seen a lot of flaws in the system, where our victims of human trafficking are not protected properly. It's not just victims of human trafficking, but I can only specifically speak to the victims we work with.

I was extremely excited to study Bill C-32. When I studied further, I realized that for the first time in a long time in Canada—again, I am speaking to my personal experience—I feel that victims of crime will be treated with more dignity in certain areas and more care, but most of all more compassion. I'm certainly not an expert, and not a lawyer, but when I read this bill as a survivor and as somebody working on the front lines, I felt that the amendments were written to create a healthier environment for the victims in the court system. I do believe the intent of this bill is to recognize the victims as human beings, as victims of something, and for all of us to actually bring back compassion.

What really struck me about this bill is that sometimes, as sad as it is, we have to put things in law and make it law so that people follow through with it, meaning that some of the wording is just encouraging us to be more compassionate. That's what I believe this bill is creating overall.

Bill C-32 has given real attention to victims and the rights for their voices to be heard throughout the court procedure. Again, that's something we've been wanting for a long time on the front lines. I'm extremely happy about proposed section 486.31. I'd be happy to elaborate on that later if anybody has any questions. I'm very excited to see clause 15; proposed paragraph 718(a); and I am very happy to see the content around protection of the victims and witnesses, and restitution.

One concern that we have around the restitution is that while we are extremely happy to see the effort and the language and the intent behind restitution, we don't believe the victims should have to go through civil court and more bureaucracy to be able to get their money from the accused. We do believe that the intent behind this is extremely amazing, and we have celebrated the fact that it even showed up in the bill.

I know it's hard to believe, but that was my statement. I'm looking forward to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Lucien Landry, President, Comité des Orphelins de Duplessis Victimes d'Abus]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This is our second appearance, although our appearance in 2012 was not before this committee, but it was in relation to legal and constitutional affairs. Access to justice for the most disadvantaged is still our concern.

On behalf of the Comité des Orphelins de Duplessis Victimes d'Abus, I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to begin by telling you about our organization to put things in perspective. Our organization represents individuals who lived in the institutional network—residential schools, orphanages and religious community institutions—from 1930 to 1965. The Comité des Orphelins de Duplessis Victimes d'Abus more specifically helps the Duplessis orphans in Quebec.

As I told the committee clerk, we also represent associations of people who have lived in other institutions across Canada, such as the Mount Cashel Orphanage, the Alfred school and a number of other non-aboriginal institutions. This is referred to as the Indian residential school file. Our organization has created a Canada-wide coalition to represent those people. So we are the voice of the people who are before you today.

They are now mostly aged 50 and over and are still suffering the consequences of the abuse they endured in their youth. We are not the only ones to take an interest in this matter. The Canadian Human Rights Commission prepared a lengthy report on the problem of children who have lived in those institutions across Canada. That report was published in the 2000s, and I have a copy of it.

Our organization has several files that relate specifically to victims. I will now talk about our concerns over Bill C-32. From the very beginning, in September, we have attended a number of meetings with the representatives of the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada. We also attended the conference that followed this process.

From 2011, we have also expressed our interest in participating in the study of this bill to Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu in order to discuss a specific aspect of our file. We may not have the skills or the expertise required to consider this bill, but we thought we would submit our main concerns to you.

Following its analysis as a user of various Canadian courts, our committee hopes that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will successfully strike a balance in justice to make it favourable to victims.

Our organization represents victims whenever they need us, not only before the courts, but also before the administrators of various government or private organizations, or community associations. When it comes to victims of sexual assault, our organization's main concerns are the period of limitation and the onus of proof regarding the inability to act, the testimony and the cross-examination, the victim's financial capacity, and the care for and the recognition of victims.

With your permission, Madam Chair, Tony Doussot will continue the presentation.

[Arlène Gaudreault, President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to begin by thanking the committee for having us and giving us an opportunity to participate in this consultation.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes is an organization that promotes and defends the rights of victims of crime. It has existed for 30 years and mainly operates in Quebec.

When the bill was announced by the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, it was presented as a first in Canadian history—a piece of legislation that would fundamentally transform and clarify victims' rights, and create a better balance between victims' and offenders' rights. His message was very powerful.

However, despite the proposed amendments—most of which we agree with—we believe that the current bill will not make it possible to achieve such ambitious objectives.

Since our allocated time is limited, we will mostly tell you about our concerns over this bill's scope and its capacity to strengthen victims' rights. We will also share our concerns about the legislation's implementation. We will submit a brief over the next few days, and we hope that you will welcome our feedback. Of course, our objective is to enhance the bill and strengthen victims' rights in Canada.

I will begin with two comments.

First, the bill's title is not the same in English and in French. We feel that the title should be the same in both languages.

Second, this bill does not cover victims' social entitlements—the right to assistance and the right to compensation. To make the message clearer for victims and the general public, the bill should instead provide for victims' rights in criminal proceedings or in the framework of the criminal justice system.

My next comments are about the rights afforded to victims.

I will first talk about rights as stipulated in clauses 25 and 29. The bill sets out rights in a general sense, as was the case in the 1989 Statement of Principle and the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, 2003. Over the past few years, all the groups have asked that victims' rights be clarified, so that victims can know what rights are afforded to them, how they can exercise them and whose responsibility it is to enforce those rights. In that regard, Bill C-32 is disappointing. It does not go as far as the Ontario and Manitoba legislation, which is much more specific.

When it comes to the right to information, for instance, this piece of legislation contains no proactive rights. It contains only rights victims have to ask for. The Manitoba legislation lists proactive rights, rights victims can obtain upon request and rights that involve certain restrictions owing to other existing legislation and policies.

Another very important element is the fact that the obligations of criminal justice system agencies and representatives are not specified. This has been an issue for years. Our organization has participated in all the consultations, and this issue has often come up. It is important for victims to know where to turn to obtain information, participate in proceedings or obtain protection. They must also be familiar with the responsibilities of various justice system players, at various stages, and know what to expect.

Inspiration could have been drawn from the experience of other countries, such as England and Wales, or the directives issued by the European Union, but Bill C-32 does not reflect those improvements. So it will be up to the federal, provincial and territorial departments to do all that detail work. I want to point out that all provinces have disparate interpretation legislation. The definition of “victim” varies. Complementarity and consistency are being talked about, but there is a tremendous amount of work to be done in that area.

Third, discretionary rights are at play here, and they are clearly set out in clause 20. All representatives—the police, departments, prosecutors and others—have a significant amount of discretion in deciding what is or is not reasonable, what can be granted and what comes under their discretion. Numerous provisions, both in the Criminal Code and in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, grant all those representatives discretion.

Presenting this bill as a quasi-constitutional tool meant to strengthen victims' rights indicates to victims that their rights will be taken into account and enforced. However, that is a misleading message. It fails to make the necessary distinctions and creates false expectations. Therefore, it is bound to lead to dissatisfaction among victims.

I don't think this is the bill's objective.

I will now move on to clauses 21 and 22, which concern rights largely established or defined in other pieces of legislation. It is said that this bill should take precedence over other federal statutes, with the exception of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as other quasi-constitutional laws. In Canada, declaratory statutes have rarely been tested before the courts. That has been done in three provinces. There have been three cases and, in all three, the judges came to the conclusion that the statutes had no legal force or effect.

I will now talk about recourse.

It is true that Bill C-32 provides for a remedy. This can be considered a step forward, but the step is a small one because there is so much left to be done to set out remedies. Federal entities only provide for the complaint process. A lot of work remains to be done to clarify the responsibilities of various departments and federal organizations, as well as to define the mandate of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and its authority to act. Procedures and policies will also have to be established, so that this statutory obligation can take effect.

The problem is even more complex in the provinces and territories. As you know, the complaint mechanisms vary from one region to another, and even from one organization to another. What is the situation on the ground? Complaint mechanisms are not well-known and are rarely used. Victims do not distinguish among the organizations of different levels of government. They have to navigate through the complex organizational machinery and often receive no guidance in this process, which they experience as a re-victimization. We also note that a number of victims do not use their recourse because the system is too complex. It's a real obstacle course. We also note that many organizations do not document the number of complaints received or the follow-up provided.

There are two stages to the process. First, the organizations must report on their work to the complainants, and second, they must analyze the complaints and process them other than on a case-by-case basis. That is the work of an ombudsman. There are recurring problems with and obstacles to the recognition of the rights of victims of crime. These rights must be represented to the appropriate authorities and all levels of government. It would be complicated to determine the responsibilities in the provinces. I know that the federal Minister of Justice said that he had started working with provincial ombudsmen.

However, if you look at section 18 of the legislation on Quebec's ombudsman, you see that this individual's area of jurisdiction and oversight is limited compared with the whole legal community, if I may call it that. Consequently, many recourse-related issues are still unresolved. This is extremely important in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I now want to move on to clauses 27 and 28. They do not grant any rights and do not provide for the appeal of a decision or an order.

What lessons can we learn when we consider the bill's scope? There is no point in promising victims that the bill will be enforceable if their rights largely depend on the discretionary power of justice officials, and if victims cannot take action and appeal decisions. There is also no sense in promising victims they will have recourse if we cannot rely on clear and coordinated mechanisms, which have no constraining effects, and if organizations are not reporting on their actions and decisions.

I would now like to add a few comments on the restitution provided for in clause 5. That measure should be clearer and talk about the entitlement to a remedy, which better reflects victims' needs and the progress made in this area. The entitlement to a remedy includes the right to restitution of goods or to a refund of costs incurred when testifying in court, as well as the right to restitution and to restorative justice. The bill should provide a definition of restorative justice. Protection safeguards should also be added when victims participate in restorative justice programs.

Let's now talk about the amendments to the Criminal Code and, more specifically, to section 7. That provision grants the right to representation by legal counsel.

Following its review of the production of records in sexual offence proceedings, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs published a report in 2012. That report looked at equity and victim protection in those records. The committee very clearly recommended that victims be entitled to a lawyer. That was stated in black and white.

Clause 7 mentions the right to be represented by counsel. That term choice is not insignificant. It greatly mitigates the Senate committee's recommendation. That term was chosen because it makes the process much less expensive for the government, since no promise is made to cover the complainant's legal costs.

As for the victim's right to representation, we will certainly recommend that the right to counsel be replaced with a right to a lawyer when records are produced in sexual offence proceedings.

We will also recommend that the agreement be reviewed because it currently covers only offenders and not complainants.

I will now comment on the victim impact statement.

The bill introduces the community impact statement. We are wondering about the scope and usefulness of such a statement. We feel that this is not a priority, given the current extent of victims' needs.

We are also wondering about the inclusion of a drawing, poem or letter in a victim impact statement. Those measures could make sense in a therapeutic context, with a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but we are wondering how they can be used. Couldn't this harm victims' interests by making them more vulnerable? I could perhaps elaborate on this issue during the question period.

I have some other comments about the victim impact statement. The court or the review board has the discretionary power to grant victims the permission to convey their views about the decision. However, according to the current jurisprudence, comments on sentencing are not accepted in the victim impact statement. This remains a discretionary power of the courts, of course, but we are wondering how it will be used by them and how eligibility will be determined. We feel that there are bigger problems currently when it comes to the use of the victim impact statement. We have many concerns in that regard.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

I call the meeting to order.

I am not Mike Wallace, just to make that clear. I gladly replace Mike today; he was at the funeral of Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

This is an emotional situation, both for the witnesses who have come to discuss Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, and for the members around this table. This is the first time we are meeting since last week's tragic events.

We are thinking deeply about the most recent victim, Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who died defending our values and rights. Nathan Cirillo's death was not in vain. Our sympathies go out to his family, friends and colleagues. The whole country feels their pain, especially today, on the day of his funeral.

That said, we will continue the study on Bill C-32. Today, we are hearing from several groups of witnesses. If memory serves, each group will have 10 minutes for their presentation. We will then move on to questions from my colleagues.

The notice of meeting indicates that we will first hear from Arlène Gaudreault, President of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes.

Ms. Gaudreault, the floor is yours.

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

You touched briefly on the victim impact statements, and you touched also on this new concept of the harm to the community. As you know, in section 718, the sentencing principle of the Criminal Code, a fundamental purpose of sentencing is provided. It's an overarching philosophy of sentencing that helps to interpret the objectives of sentencing. Bill C-32 will add an explicit reference in proposed paragraph 718(a) to harm done to victims or the community. This will make it explicit that the objective of sentencing is not only to denounce criminals, but also to recognize and denounce the harm done to victims.

Could you comment on this provision?

[Karyn Kennedy, Executive Director, Boost Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention]

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-32, the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Boost has worked in Toronto for more than 30 years to support children who have been abused. We have worked with tens of thousands of child victims to offer prevention and education, counselling, and court preparation and support.

Boost developed the first protocol in Canada to provide guidelines on investigating and responding to cases of child abuse, implemented one of the first specialized court preparation programs for child victims and witnesses, and participated in the development of Ontario's first child-friendly courtroom with a special prosecution team dedicated to cases of child abuse.

Boost is seen as a leader in the field in terms of support for victims and in October 2013 opened Toronto's first, and one of Canada's largest, child and youth advocacy centres for victims of abuse and violence.

I would first like to speak to the strengths of the bill. I believe there are a number of ways in which the bill will promote and protect the rights of child victims, and I applaud the creation of a bill that is specifically for victims and highlights victims' rights that will be enshrined in law.

The bill provides important recognition of the unique status of victims, in that victims are more than just witnesses in the criminal justice system.

lt specifically validates harms not routinely considered, such as emotional harm and the economic costs of criminal harm. Through the new victim impact statement provisions, particularly for children, the emotional harm and emotional abuse that often accompany other forms of chargeable abuse can be validated through the victim impact statement, if and when the offender is found guilty in a criminal court.

Giving victims a voice to express the impact of the crime is a critical component of the healing process. One consideration I would suggest is that there may be difficulty for some child victims in writing or reading from a written statement. ln 2012, Boost piloted a project to video record children's victim impact statements and for the video statements to be used in court. This served as an effective tool for children to be able to express their feelings honestly and in a way that the written statement did not allow.

The bill translates many current practices of providing information to victims into rights, such as information about resources and supports, the status of the investigation and prosecution, the release of offenders, as well as parole conditions and what the offender looks like at the time of release.

The bill specifically sets out that victims have a right to protection, and this includes the right to have their security considered and reasonable measures taken to protect them from intimidation and retaliation. This is particularly important in cases of sexual assault. One of the most common reasons that victims do not come forward to report to law enforcement is fear that the threats made by the offender will be realized.

ln the vast majority of child sexual abuse cases, threats are made to the child that directly relate to their own safety and security and/or that of their loved ones. Including this protection in the bill sends a strong message that their safety and security will be protected.

ln recent months, Boost has begun to see more cases involving human trafficking of young women and there is a heightened element of fear in these cases that will require special considerations with respect to their safety.

The bill states that every victim has the right to request testimonial aids when appearing as a witness. While this is important to include as a right, in my experience it is very difficult, if not impossible, for children and other vulnerable witnesses to ask for this unless a professional advocates for them.

ln some jurisdictions across the country there are specialized child victim witness court preparation programs where the needs of child victims are identified and advocated for in the court. However, where this type of program is not available, child victims cannot rely solely on judges or crown attorneys to make applications on their behalf.

I'd like to address some of the ways the bill could be enhanced to further support the rights of child witnesses. While testimonial aids are available to all child witnesses, in my experience they're underutilized because they are either not always available in some jurisdictions or because there are prosecutors who still believe that it's preferable to have the child testify on the stand without the benefit of testimonial aids.

These decisions are often made as it's felt that a witness on the stand, even if the witness is in distress, will have a greater impact on a judge or jury. As a result, we often see an underutilization of testimonial aids even if they may be in the best interests of the victim. Professor Nicholas Bala and his colleagues in their 2011 report to the Department of Justice where they examined, among other things, perceptions of the judiciary regarding the use of testimonial support provisions, found that in almost half of the cases applications for the use of closed-circuit television for children under 18 were either never or only occasionally made.

Other jurisdictions have recognized that children and certain other vulnerable groups need additional advocacy to ensure their rights are asserted and upheld. In the United States, a guardian ad litem may be appointed by the court as an additional support person who can assist children to exercise their statutory rights to special measures. They can make recommendations to the court regarding the child's welfare and access all evaluations, records, and reports regarding the child. There's also federal legislation that provides for attorneys for children in addition to guardians ad litem. Norway provides for state-funded counsel and separate legal representation for alleged child and adult victims of certain sexual and violent offences.

While the government may not wish at this point to consider the possibility of duty counsel for vulnerable victims, perhaps the flexibility to allow pro bono lawyers, law students, or even privately hired lawyers, when they can be afforded to attend hearings as advocates for victims' rights, may be feasible. It's also possible that legal clinics and law schools across the country could provide such assistance. There are already protections in the bill to ensure there's no excessive delay or interference with the proper administration of justice. Moreover, given Canada's commitment to and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in December 1991, it's arguable that more should be done now in the legislation in relation to child victims' rights.

For example, article 12 of the convention sets out a child's right to be heard. It says:

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Finally, Canada, which has taken a leadership role with respect to the development of the United Nations' 2005 Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, might consider some of the guidance it provided in this area. There are several areas where children's needs as victims could be better accommodated in the legislation. The current bill provides for applications by victims for various measures available under the Criminal Code, for example, testimonial aids and publication bans, as well as the rights of victims to convey their views about decisions to be made by authorities that affect their rights. However, vulnerable victims will need support and assistance to make applications and convey their views.

Paragraph 25 of the guidelines states:

25. Professionals should develop and implement measures to make it easier for children to testify or give evidence to improve communication and understanding at the pre-trial and trial stages. These measures may include: (a) Child victim and witness specialists who address the child's special needs; (b) Support persons including specialists and appropriate family members to accompany the child during testimony; (c) Where appropriate, to appoint guardians to protect the child's legal interests.

The language used in court, particularly with child victims, must be understandable and respectful of children's developmental capabilities. There's a dearth of attention to this issue. Provincially, the law societies have not addressed this, and it's the right of child victims to understand and to be respected during questioning as victims and to be able to participate fully in the criminal justice system.

Bala also asked judges about their experiences with the questioning of child witnesses and asked them how often, if at all, they observed child witnesses 13 years and under being asked questions by professionals where they appear incapable of answering due to the complexity of questions or developmentally inappropriate questions. Thirty per cent of judges reported that defence counsel often or almost always asked complex questions compared to 23% by police, 13% by the crown, 11% of child protection workers and 8% by judges. It's also worth noting some other relevant provisions of the UN guidelines including articles 14 and 31. All interactions described in these guidelines should be conducted in a child-sensitive manner in a suitable environment that accommodates the special needs of the child according to his or her abilities, age, intellectual maturity, and evolving capacity. They should also take place in a language that the child uses and understands.

Professionals should also implement measures to ensure child victims and witnesses are questioned in a child-sensitive manner and to allow for the exercise of supervision by judges, facilitate testimony, and reduce potential intimidation, for example, by using testimonial aids or appointing psychological experts.

Again, other jurisdictions have recognized this issue as a pressing one for child victims and have made developments in response. Over the past decade, several countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and parts of the United States, have enacted specific legislation in an attempt to prevent improper questioning of child witnesses, particularly during cross-examination.

Bill C-32 offers an opportunity to recognize not only the unique needs of victims, but those of child victims of violent crime, and to provide protections and advocate for the needs of these vulnerable victims.

Thank you.

[Steve Sullivan, Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thank you to the committee for allowing me to come to testify on Bill C-32.

I am here as an individual, but I come with a wide range of experience. I was formerly the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. I currently work in an organization called Ottawa Victim Services, which is a front line, community-based agency that works with victims of crime. I also teach at Algonquin College in the victimology program. I am here as an individual, and so I don't represent any of those organizations but am happy to draw on the experiences of that work.

There are many positive aspects to Bill C-32. Frankly, I think much of the positive stuff isn't so much found in the victims bill of rights as in the changes to the Criminal Code and the CCRA. I'm not trying to say there is something wrong with the victims bill of rights, but what concerns me is more what people are saying about the bill than what the bill actually says.

We were told that the bill would put victims at the heart of the justice system. It doesn't do that. We were told that the victims would have enforceable rights. They don't have those. This is an important bill. I think it's important for Parliament to take the opportunity, as provincial legislatures have, to pass their comments on and give direction to the courts and to those in the system on how they expect victims of crime to be treated, but to be honest, I don't think the bill is going to change very much in the everyday aspect of our court system, our police stations, and our victims service offices.

Before I get to that, let me talk about some of the positive things that are in here. To be honest, I'm pleased to see some of the initiatives that we started during my short time at the ombudsman's office, such as the amendments to the CCRA to let victims see a photo of the offender, if he or she is about to be released. That can be really important for people. If someone has been in prison for a long time, their appearance may have changed and you don't know whether they are coming back to your community, so it would be nice to know what the person looks like. To have access to that photo is very positive. That's one of the recommendations we made when I was at the ombudsman's office.

The ability to have that, and the suggestion Andy made about having the photo as part of the victim impact statement, but maybe doing more than that.... I think those are important, really positive changes for victims who are there to represent their loved ones. I don't think they would change anything in the sentencing process.

I think it's important to have information about immigration for victims, and there are some changes to the CCRA here. That was one of the recommendations we made as well.

I wouldn't limit it so much. The bill limits information, if the offender has been removed from the country while under sentence. I would not put that limitation on, because if the Correctional Service of Canada transfers the offender to the custody of the Canada Border Services Agency, and while they have them—it's not a quick process—the sentence ends, then the victim wouldn't necessarily be notified if the offender were removed from the country. I think some expansion there would be appropriate.

The changes to restitution are positive, although I'm hesitant to suggest that we're going to see any real, significant change in it. Restitution is really complicated and very difficult. It's relatively easy if you have a broken television or you have a computer that was stolen, but when it gets into having counselling and losing time at work—some of the things the minister talked about—the expenses are sometimes very hard to capture, if there is going to be a plea bargain, because these things happen really quickly. The court requires your expenses to be readily ascertainable.

There is a provision, and I think it's positive, that the crown can ask for an adjournment to help collect those costs, but the victim has no ability to ask for such an adjournment. I think that would be a positive amendment as well.

Having said that, restitution is very challenging. Even though there is the civil process to have the order enforced, it becomes very challenging for victims to have to go to civil court to have the order enforced.

Saskatchewan has, as far as I know, a very well run restitution program that supports victims through this process. It might be something you would want to look at.

The complaints process is a very good idea, usually not through the ombudsman's office. It allows tracking of problems. if there are recurring issues, if there are systemic issues, you can address those. In smaller jurisdictions, it can be used as an educational tool.

I think the notion that a complaints process makes a right enforceable is a bit of a stretch. The right to complain doesn't give you a right to anything, really. This is not to say that it is not a positive addition, but it really doesn't give you, I think, what the government says that would equal enforceable rights.

In a lot of the bill, with the limitations in the bill again, there are important jurisdictional issues and important charter issues to consider, so I'm not suggesting to you that the limits that are in the bill are wrong. I think if you wanted to remove those and give victims standing and let them be a party, those are bigger discussions than you'd want to have in this bill, but as long as those restrictions are in there, I don't think anyone can suggest this puts victims at the centre, at the heart of the justice system.

Let me give you one example. We've heard already about the right to be notified of the plea, and so the judge, he or she, will have to ask the crown whether they notified the victim about this plea arrangement, but the bill actually says that the judge has to ask that question after he or she has accepted the plea. Crown and defence make their submissions. The judge accepts it. At that point the judge is required to ask the crown whether they talked to the victim about this. As Andy mentioned, if the crown says no, he or she should go and do that, but if they don't, nothing really happens. Keep in mind also, before the judge is to give the sentence, he or she is required to ask the crown if the victim wants to give a victim impact statement.

There's a series of these things. The last research I saw suggested that about one-third of judges actually ask crowns if they canvass victims for impact statements. It's in the Criminal Code, and it says they shall do it, but we know they often don't. There is no remedy or fallback from that, so I think it's important as we talk about the bill of rights to put it into context.

If you really want to understand what change this bill will make, you really should be hearing from the provinces; 90% of this falls under their jurisdiction. If they were to come to you and you were to ask them—because they all have their own provincial legislation—what the difference would be in their province, my guess is they would probably say, “not much”. If you were to ask police officers, if you were to ask the crown attorneys association, how they are going to do their job differently, I'm pretty sure they would say that not really much is going to change.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong, and I've been wrong before, if they were to say, “No, absolutely a lot is going to change: as crowns we're going to have to do all these things; as police we're going to have to do these things”, the question then becomes who's going to pay for all that. We hear constantly that our crowns are overburdened, and our police services budgets are really high. I can tell you in the Province of Ontario they're undergoing a modernization process for their victims services. This bill has not come up. In fact, they are cutting some victims services, and no new money is going to be put into victims services is the message that's being given in Ontario.

Also, with the concerns about victim-client surcharge, if we get a court of appeal that comes forward and says those lower court of appeal decisions are correct, that means they'll stop imposing the victim-client surcharge. In Ottawa, we've had lower court decisions that have said it's unconstitutional, and some judges, even when offenders can pay, have chosen not to impose the surcharge. Programs like Ottawa Victims Services that exist across the province get all of their funding from victim surcharges; it doesn't come from general revenue. If there is no surcharge money, that will have an impact on how those services operate.

Quickly, I would suggest a couple of things the committee might want to consider. The minister has talked about the ombudsman's office having some kind of oversight role. I've read the bill, but I don't see the office of the ombudsman actually mentioned in the bill at all, and I think certainly for provincial jurisdiction, that wouldn't be appropriate. I know when I was there we were told in no uncertain terms we were not to look over the shoulders of the provinces.

I think if there are going to be federal agencies that have their own complaints process, I would hope that the last point of appeal for a victim would be to the ombudsman's office. If it was the RCMP or corrections, and they didn't get a resolution, they could go to the ombudsman's office. I would also hope that all the departments would report back to the ombudsman's office so that it could track the kinds of complaints they're seeing and make recommendations to the government.

I would echo something Andy said as well about those victims. In our case, in a lot of the cases in the front-line victim services, many clients who we see don't report to the police. Some 90% of women who are sexually assaulted don't report to the police. Most domestic violence victims don't report. Hate crime victims and male victims don't report to the police. If this bill were to have the kind of change in the system the government suggests it would, I think in victim services we'd be putting a lot of resources into those victims in the system, which means that those victims who don't report would be left out in the cold. I wouldn't want to see that happen.

On immigration I talked a bit about that.

I was struck by the minister's comments that the bill wouldn't apply to the military; it wouldn't apply to the military justice system. I find that quite concerning, especially given what we've heard in recent years about the treatment of sexual assault victims in the military. I would hope that if it can't be remedied in this bill, the rights and the provisions and the approach that is provided to victims, that kind of recognition, would also be given to victims in the military justice system.

Thank you.

[Claude Laferrière, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and especially to Ms. Françoise Boivin, the member for Gatineau, for giving me the opportunity today to express my concerns about clause 20 of Bill C-32.

First, the cause of victims of crime must be separated from partisan politics and be based on a fair and complete interpretation of the law and the facts, and not on rhetoric.

Second, this new right of victims can be understood only in light of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution of Canada, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. In this case, we are talking about the right of victims of crime and their families to life and security.

Third, the provisions in Bill C-32 on victims' rights to information, participation, protection and restitution are purely declaratory and do not impose any specific obligations or responsibilities on justice system stakeholders, or create any enforcement procedure, timeframe or sanction in case of failure. Here I am referring to clauses 28 and 29 in particular.

These provisions are merely statements of principle that do not impose any constraints on anyone. One could almost be satisfied with them because our courts generally comply with these general principles, if it were not for the new provisions that are completely foreign to the cause of victims and cast doubt on the legislator's real intent, which in light of clause 20 in particular seems increasingly vague and ambiguous. One would be justified in asking the legislator who suggested clause 20 in a bill for victims, because whoever it was is clearly not a victim. In fact, that is my question for you. Who suggested this clause?

If the legislator had wanted to respond to calls from the police and crown attorneys, it could have proceeded differently and introduced a separate bill that could have been called the Police and Crown Immunity Bill. However, that would have been a clear indication of federal interference in the civil law of responsibility, which is a provincial jurisdiction. This would have led to another constitutional debate before our courts, in addition to giving our police officers and crown attorneys quasi-judicial status in the meantime.

Fortunately, in Canada we can still sue police officers and crown attorneys for professional misconduct in civil court, or go through their professional association. However, if a law on immunity of the police and the Crown were passed, or if clause 20 becomes law, which is what we anticipate, it will no longer be possible to sue them in civil court without causing a constitutional dispute.

Could it be that the government does not want to hold this debate openly and directly, yet still wants to create this immunity using the cause of victims?

Fourth, clause 20 of the bill is reminiscent of some Criminal Code provisions, which we will come back to. Regarding clause 20, I want to point to the impairment of the police's discretionary power, and the adverse effect on the prosecutor's discretionary power.

In addition to clause 20, there is part IV of the Criminal Code, entitled “Offenses Against the Administration of Law and Justice”, which applies to everyone without discrimination. These are provisions on corruption and perjury. These provisions have proven effective in court.

However the wording of this new clause 20, which purports to protect police and prosecutorial discretion, is indicative of a spectacular shift, because the legislator is confirming the immunity of the police and the Crown from potential complaints or recriminations by victims of crime and their families for professional misconduct or negligence, without saying so in so many words. This could even open the door to criminal prosecutions of victims and their families if the police or the Crown, or both, should be offended by their statements in the media, for example.

How did we get to this point? Simply put, the victim must not interfere with the discretion of the police, the Crown, and so on. Otherwise, the victim risks being charged with interfering with the administration of justice, according to clause 20.

And since the bill does not set out any objective criterion for determining what constitutes interference with the administration of justice by a victim, for example, we are to understand that the criterion is subjective and therefore left to the discretion of the police and the Crown.

If this bill were passed as is, there would be a significant reduction in victims' rights when it comes to their freedom to express their opinions publicly or privately. Public debate demands that victims and public commentators, journalists, editorial writers, lawyers and other stakeholders be able to express their opinions and even their anger or dissatisfaction regarding legal matters freely and publicly.

The reasons for including this provision in a bill to help victims of crime and their families are unclear, but it is reasonable to think that they have something to do with a hidden agenda whose implications are impossible to know. Based on subjective criteria, clause 20 seeks to limit the scope of a bill that does not offer anything new.

Did this provision come out of some sort of union agenda of police officers or crown attorneys? It is reasonable to think so. In Quebec, we are all aware of what police officers and crown attorneys are capable of when it comes to strikes or work slowdowns. I will come back to this with some examples.

I therefore submit that clause 20 is an attempt to abuse the law and is designed to derail a bill whose purpose was to help vulnerable people: victims of crime and their families. But what is most disturbing is that the police and crown attorneys will be able to use this bill to protect themselves if they are sued for professional misconduct in connection with high-profile criminal trials and labour relations conflicts. Ultimately, the police and crown attorneys will have used victims to serve their own ends.

I would now like to make a some separate comments regarding the 2012 symposium.

Quebec's main contribution to standing up for victims came out of the 2012 symposium organized by Marc Bellemare, the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the Liberal government of the Right Honourable Jean Charest, and attended by the Honourable Christian Paradis, then minister and Quebec lieutenant, and the Honourable Bertrand Saint-Arnaud, Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the Parti Québécois government, as guests of honour. The governments of Quebec and Canada were sponsors of the event. I assisted senator Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, who led the workshop on a bill of rights for victims and their families. In my opinion, the symposium was an historic event, a clear indication that vulnerable people rightfully want rights, dignity and legitimacy, both because of the exceptional number of participants and because of the quality of the speakers.

The main conclusions of the symposium were that victims or their families should have the right to representation by a lawyer whose fees and expenses would potentially be covered by provincial legal aid, and who would potentially exercise a veto in a plea bargain, and even appeal a verdict or sentence in a criminal case on their behalf. However, all the recommendations that came out of the symposium organized by Marc Bellemare were ignored.

To illustrate the importance and appropriateness of having an independent attorney for victims, I submit the following two cases to you orally. The first case is the murder of the late Jacques Jong and the fictitious case of Stéphanie. However, since I am running out of time, I will simply conclude by saying that for now, the goal of my testimony today is much more humble than trying to bring about the recommendations of the 2012 symposium. I simply ask that you remove clause 20 from Bill C-32. This clause is not relevant or useful or appropriate for a law that has to do with victims. Moreover, if police and crown attorneys want a debate on their immunity, they can do so in the context of an independent, separate bill, and not in the context of Bill C-32.

Thank you.

[Andrew Murie, Chief Executive Officer, National Office, Mothers Against Drunk Driving]

Mr. Chair, good afternoon.

I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present MADD Canada's comments on Bill C-32. Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. In 2010 there were 1,082 impairment-related crash deaths in Canada. That is almost double the homicide rate of 554 for the same year.

MADD Canada estimates that on average every day in Canada almost four people are killed in impairment-related driving crashes, and another 175 people are injured. As you will hear from many victims organizations throughout these hearings, losing a loved one as a result of a crime is a life-altering event. All aspects of your life are affected. Celebrations, religious occasions, and life milestones are never the same when your loved one is no longer there to share in these special moments. A lot of people never recover from their victimization and suffer from ongoing mental health issues such as depression and addiction.

An offender serves a sentence, but a victim is given a life sentence of sorrow and heartbreak. Most victims come into the criminal justice system expecting a system of fairness. Most victims leave the criminal justice system severely disappointed and frustrated. They are left wondering where their rights are as victims.

Previous government legislation gave victims the right to read victim impact statements in court, increased the victim surcharge fine, made the victim surcharge mandatory, and limited the credit for time served prior to sentencing. These were all steps in the right direction for victims' rights. However, there is still much work to be done before most victims of crime are treated fairly and see justice served by the criminal justice system.

I will now highlight some of the key provisions of Bill C-32 from the perspective of MADD Canada and its members.

Under the section dealing with right to information, we're very encouraged by the following provisions: victims will be given more specific information on the criminal investigation and on the accused offender; judges will be required to ask the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victim of any plea agreements in cases involving murder or serious bodily injury; victims will be able to request copies of bail, sentence conditions, and probation orders; and amendments will be made to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to increase the rights of registered victims to access information on offenders' parole board hearings, status, and progress. This includes providing victims with information about the offenders' release dates, destinations, and parole conditions.

Under the section dealing with the right to participation, we are pleased to hear that Bill C-32 will increase the rights of victims to state their views at various stages of the criminal justice process. Under the section dealing with remedies, we're very pleased that victims will have the right to make complaints if their rights are infringed. Those are all positive changes that in our opinion will serve to improve the rights of victims of crime.

However, we do have some concerns about the bill.

Under the right to information section, the provision that a prosecutor must take reasonable steps to inform the victim of a plea agreement in cases involving murder or serious bodily injury, we are concerned that there are no ramifications if this requirement is not met. There is no effect on the validity of the plea agreement. In other words, the prosecutor and judge have a responsibility to ensure the victim is informed of the plea agreement, but there is no sanction or recourse if the prosecutor or the judge fail in that responsibility.

With respect to victim surcharges, we are deeply disappointed at the recent court decision to strike down the increases to the victim surcharges and make them mandatory. These funds go into victim services organizations which are extremely underfunded as it is. The loss of these victim surcharges will have a serious negative impact on organizations that already struggle to provide services and support to victims of crime.

Bill C-32 only deals with reasonable timeframes for payment of the victim surcharge. It is our opinion that victim surcharges need to be a key part of the criminal justice system. Under the right to participation, we believe victims should be allowed to make electronic or video presentations as part of their victim impact statements, both in court and at parole board hearings, rather than be limited to an oral presentation and a static photograph. Under the right to protection, when dealing with offenders in small communities, the parole board should consider the implications of having offenders go back into the same communities where the victims live.

We also believe there's a need to re-examine the definition of victim. Many victims never enter the criminal justice system because the offenders who killed their loved ones are also killed in those crashes or never formally charged. These victims suffer as much emotional trauma as victims who enter the criminal justice system, but a lot of times are denied most of their rights contained in Bill C-32, and many of these individuals are also denied victims services at the local level.

In conclusion, Bill C-32 expands the ability of victims to obtain information and to ensure their viewpoints are sought out at various stages of the criminal proceedings. Offenders will be held more accountable. The real impact of Bill C-32, however, will depend largely on the commitment of provinces and territories to strengthen their own victims' rights. For example, currently all the provincial and territorial criminal injury and compensation acts preclude impaired driving victims from recovering damages. Impaired driving is the single large criminal cause of death in Canada and is one of the leading criminal causes of injury. Victims of impaired driving are no less worthy or in need of compensation than victims of other crimes. Consequently, impaired driving victims should have the same right to compensation as victims of other crimes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 47 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 20, 2014, for Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts. We're beginning our study of that bill today.

We had the minister at our meeting before the break. Today we have from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Andrew Murie, chief executive officer, national office; as individuals, Claude Laferrière, who is a lawyer, and Robert Hooper, who is a lawyer and a victims right advocate; Steve Sullivan, former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; and from Boost Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention, Karyn Kennedy, the executive director.

Thanks to all of you for joining us today.

In the order listed on the notice of meeting, we will have each witness give a presentation of up 10 minutes. Then we will go to a round of questions and answers from all parties.

We will start with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Andrew, the floor is yours.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Are you sure it will be interpreted that way? Aren't people going to think, instead, that this is a way of codifying in law what the courts have found, namely that people had to be given a reasonable time to pay?

When I read “reasonable time”, I wondered whether you weren't solving your problem, but rather opening another can of worms.

The courts might say instead that the legislature, through Bill C-32 understood that there was little hesitation, under the circumstances, to apply the surcharge in a situation where we have a person who is not necessarily unable to pay, but who would find it extremely onerous to pay $100 or $200—which is perhaps very little to some others. Some people have extremely limited budgets.

What makes you say that this solves the problem? I find that the term itself is questionable.

[Carole Morency]

I would agree that that is an issue, and it is an issue that is currently being litigated before some of the courts. Bill C-32 is not addressing that other broader consideration, but it is looking to make the evidence of any spouse available.

[Carole Morency]

Currently we have a mix of statutory provisions that protect against compellability for spouses and also some common-law rules. These are in the Canada Evidence Act. The bill is seeking to abolish that rule so that all spouses would be competent to testify against their spouse, and compellable, and right now for common law it does apply. For example, in the situation of spousal abuse, that would be covered now under common law, so yes, it would still apply in that sense.

Basically what would happen is that the crown would make a decision in a particular case: would calling this spouse to testify against the accused provide evidence that the crown cannot otherwise bring before the court? The crown would normally take into consideration whether there are other sources of evidence to provide this. If not, if that's the major witness, then that would be an option.

For example, in an impaired driving case, the spouse who sees the accused driving would be able to say what she observed her spouse to be doing, but she would not be required under the victims bill of rights to communicate what had been communicated to her in confidence by her spouse. The communication privilege would be preserved by Bill C-32, but she could still be compelled to testify as to her own observations.