Do it now.
Victims Bill of Rights Act
An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts
This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2015.
This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2015.
Peter MacKay Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-32s:
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I hear a member on the other side say, “Do it now”. I am not on the committee that this bill will go to and I have a very strong interest in victims' rights.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to represent my constituents and this is my opportunity to do that, whether or not the government House leader continues to heckle me about it.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is going to distract me, but this is really what it is all about. When members want to actually represent their constituents, we hear from the other side “shut up”, “wrap it up”, “sit down”, “we don't want to hear from you”, yet the people who are advocates of the bill are telling us they want dialogue on it. How can we have dialogue on the bill when people on the other side are telling me to sit down and be quiet? It does not make any sense to me.
I am also concerned that sometimes when we talk about victims' rights, we focus too much on their role in the legal system and we forget about the other needs of victims. Victims quite often need compensation for time lost at work, compensation for their real material losses, counselling and other things which are quite expensive. As I said earlier in one of my questions, the government's solution to that in this bill is to rely on restitution. I am disappointed to hear the member say that means I am worried about someone who cannot pay the restitution. I am not. I am worried about the victim who will get nothing out of the restitution process.
I am already out of time. Probably because of time allocation, I will not get to speak again. It is very disappointing, because this is an important bill on which dialogue could lead to much improvement.
Victims Bill of RightsGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
Recognizing the clock as being at midnight, we will move on to the next order of business.
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-32 this afternoon. It is really interesting to be able to stand and recognize that the government has actually done a fairly good job on this piece of legislation. It is one of those things for which time allocation should not be required. It is one of things that, I believe, is not controversial.
I would look to the minister, who has done a fairly decent job in bringing the legislation forward. From what I understand through our critic, the minister reached out to different regions of our country to get a better sense of what this bill should look like and, ultimately, brought in the legislation.
I cannot help but think that there are, no doubt, many other pieces of legislation that would have benefited from the same sort of attitude in terms of reaching out to Canadians for input. In particular, there are the changes to the Elections Act that we had.
It is important to recognize that this legislation would build upon previous work from the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien governments. Victims' rights have always been important. In fact, our critic provided me with one document that makes reference to a revised version of the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, which was done in 2003. That provided great detail on the principles to guide legislators and service providers in the promotion of access to justice, fair treatment, and the provision of assistance for victims of crime.
Just given the number of points that are listed here, there might be some value in me reading the list. The document, referenced in the preamble to the victims bill of rights now before the House, identified the following principles as intended to promote the fair treatment of victims.
They are as follows:
1. Victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.
2. The privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible.
3. All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims.
4. The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation.
5. Information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes.
6. Victims should be given information, in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress and final outcome of the proceedings; and the status of the offender in the correctional system.
7. Information should be provided to victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation.
8. The views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures.
9. The needs, concerns and diversity of victims should be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services, and in related education and training.
10. Information should be provided to victims about available options to raise their concerns when they believe that these principles have not been followed.
In 2005, the Liberal government announced new initiatives to support victims of crime, including allowing victims to apply for financial assistance to attend the National Parole Board hearings of the offenders who had harmed them.
I think it is fair to say that members of the House, as a whole, though I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, have long been concerned about victims and understand and appreciate the importance of ensuring that as much as possible is done to take into consideration the rights of victims. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Liberals find ourselves supporting Bill C-32. As I have indicated, the bill would continue to build upon other government initiatives in a very positive fashion.
The Liberal Party critic pointed out at second reading that the bill was broken into two major areas. The first is the Canadian victims bill of rights, which would specify that victims of a crime would have a right to information about the criminal justice system. He used the example that the bill would provide access to some elements regarding the status of a particular investigation. It would include measures to protect the security and privacy of victims. As well, it would ensure that victims would be shielded from any form of intimidation. The bill would also provide victims, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the right to convey their views and have them considered, as well as to make victim impact statements and seek restitution orders.
I will pause here to say that I had an opportunity, in a much smaller capacity, to serve in a very rewarding way on a youth justice committee. We were moving in the direction on how we could get victims more involved in dispositions and we felt that in certain situations, it would be appropriate, if at all possible, to invite the participation of victims. An example might be where a young person vandalized or stolen from an individual or company and the circumstances around the meeting with the youth in question would allow the victim to be brought before the justice committee, along with the youth, to work together in coming up with a disposition.
We found a great sense of accomplishment when both the victims and the perpetrators felt, through that process, that the disposition was appropriate, particularly from the victims' perspective. They saw justice being applied first-hand. I was not directly involved because I was the chair of the committee, but on a couple of occasions when I was directly involved, the victims felt wonderful about the opportunity to be engaged in the process and to be a part of it.
The bill specifies when these types of rights apply, who can exercise them, how complaints are to be treated, and the interpretation of this act relative to other acts. It is important to note, even though those are the two major aspects of the legislation, that some other amendments are being proposed. When I had the opportunity to go through them, I thought allowing victims the right to seek publication bans was interesting and quite important for us to recognize. That change would ensure that harm of victims would be considered also in sentencing.
There is a number of reasons why we should be satisfied with the legislation as proposed. This is not to say that the government could not have done a better job in the drafting of the legislation prior to going to committee.
Some concerns were expressed, and I will point out the three that have been provided to me.
One is that the bill provides for enhanced information sharing, but does not outline the responsibility for this in specific terms. This is an area we thought had fallen short during second reading debate.
I also note, through presentations that were made and feedback received, that it does not address the fact that most victims do not know they need to register with the Parole Board or Correctional Service of Canada to receive information about the offenders who have harmed them.
The third point is that the bill would allow for certain victims to be informed of a plea bargain, but would not allow victims to have a say before a plea would be accepted.
These are some of the views that were expressed by the Victims Rights Ombudsman and others, both formally and informally, and raised with the Liberal Party, committee members and so forth.
We need to recognize that the victims' rights are of the utmost importance, but I want to conclude my remarks by making a general observation with regard to victims as a whole.
I believe that there is so much more the government could do to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. The government needs to start investing more time and energy into this.
Yesterday was wonderful. We were able to debate fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the chamber. If this disorder were identified at any earlier stage, it would go a long way in assisting some in avoiding the justice system.
There are some simple things that could be done. I get frustrated very quickly when I hear many different stories and concerns from Winnipeg North. I get frustrated in the sense that we have been unable to better provide for Canadians as a whole. However, for me specifically at this moment and for residents of Winnipeg North, we should try to come up with alternatives for our young people, in particular, that would take them away from gangs. I do not think the government does enough in that regard. What other alternatives through programming might we be able to provide?
I recognize there are different roles and responsibilities, depending on the level of government, but the national government has a strong role to play in the coordination, ensuring that the different stakeholders are brought together, that dialogue occurs, that there is a sense of best practices that occur in the many different jurisdictions and communities.
The current government has fallen short on this. The Prime Minister believes that the least involvement of government, the better it is for society as a whole. That approach can be best seen in a wide variety of actions, or lack of actions, by the Government of Canada, but in certain areas, it can even more so. A couple that come to mind right away are health care and justice.
When I was first elected in a by-election, one of the primary, if not most important, messages I wanted to convey to members of this privileged chamber was that people in our communities needed to feel safe. However, there are certain areas or pockets across the country where that sense of security in one's home is challenged at times.
If the government really wanted to make a difference, it could do so in a more tangible way. I will give a couple of examples of that. It is all about how we might be able to prevent future victims.
One of the things that really frustrated me was issues related to community policing. It was quite upsetting when we had community police offices in Winnipeg's north end being closed down. It did not matter whether it was the provincial or national government, and to a certain extent the municipal government, but no one seemed to stand and say that it was not the direction in which to go.
We have had former chiefs of police in Winnipeg indicate very clearly that community policing works and can be effective. I know first-hand just how effective it can be. When we collectively allowed community policing to be closed down, we really allowed for more victims in the future.
Community policing is better able to work with young people and get a sense of where the problem areas are. In doing so, it is able to prevent crimes from taking place. I believe this would have made a difference.
I can recall when the current Prime Minister came up with a pot of money to be used to increase the number of police officers. I understand that money was given to the different provinces. However, in Manitoba, that money was just put aside. I do not know if it was ever used, but it was a commitment that came from Ottawa saying that it wanted to see more police out on the streets in our communities.
Well, that did not happen, even though Ottawa wanted allocated money for it. It was because there was no sense of co-operation from Ottawa and the province to ensure that in fact would happen. Instead, we saw a pot of money put to the side, and the province did not act on the initiative with the city of Winnipeg.
That was unfortunate. Whatever the arguments might have been, the bottom line was, who paid the cost?
The Prime Minister, on the one hand, said that the government would put more police on the streets, but, on the other hand, he was not successful at that because he did not work with the different stakeholders. At the time, it meant that the police officers he promised never materialized, at least not in a timely fashion. As a result, we might have lost the opportunity to have prevented some crimes from taking place. This is what it really boils down to. There needs to be more co-operation with the federal government and the different stakeholders to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.
If I could send a message to the Prime Minister today, it would be that we need to take a more holistic approach in dealing with crime in our communities and provide the type of programming that will make a difference to prevent victims in the first place and to prevent crimes.
That is what I think we need to start getting tough on, the causes of crime.
I look forward to future budgets in which we will see this as more of a priority and in which there will be an allocation to prevent crime from taking place in the first place.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague.
This is another bill coming forward from the government. They talk about getting tough on crime.
What I have seen a lot of, especially in terms of the private members' bills coming forward, is that the government comes in with a bill that looks like it will do A, B, C, and D. Witnesses are brought forward on the bill as is. Then the bill gets to being nearly done at the committee stage. The witnesses are sent home. Then the government itself amends its own bill, because it is often poorly done, and virtually brings the bill back to pretty near what the original law was.
I see that as almost a revictimization of victims. The government lets on that it is doing A, B, C, and D but really does not get it done through the bill, because at the end of the day, it amends the bill to being nearly the way it was.
I wonder if my colleague has anything to say about that.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it has been an issue with the government on virtually all the legislation related to crime. The government likes to come across as if it is really tough on crime. That is the message it is trying to communicate.
If we read through some of the legislation, we will find that there is not really that much to a lot of it. There are some initiatives the government has taken, but it seems to me that it is more about political spin than it is about improving the law itself. That is what can get very frustrating. As my colleague points out, amendments to legislation can be brought forward, and the government does not act on them. The government has its own agenda, and that is something it wants to push through. It does not necessarily respond to amendments.
That is what we see with the vast majority of the legislation the government actually brings in. If it were to open its attitude toward receiving amendments, I think that on the whole we would have much better legislation passing through the House.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North indicated an indirect expression of concern that there may be more form than substance and that we may be just scratching the surface and not going into real depth on victims' legislation.
I wonder if I could have some clarification from the member about his position. Is the Liberal Party supporting the bill despite these concerns?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, what I indicated at the outset was that we in the Liberal Party look at this as a continuation, in good part, of actions that were taken back in 2003 when there was a great deal of effort put into revising the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles for Justice for Victims of Crime. That was there for all legislatures to go over. I went over a number of points, I believe it was 10 points at the time. As opposed to going through all of those points, suffice it to say that we will in fact be supporting the legislation.
Another comment I made was that we feel that there could have been a few amendments to the legislation that would have enhanced victims' rights or the bill. We will have to wait for another more opportune time when the government is maybe more open to receiving amendments. Suffice it to say that we are prepared to vote in favour of the legislation, because for the most part, it is quite supportive.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have, in particular, and my speech will address it, is that there appears to be no attached funding envelope for the victims bill of rights, Bill C-32. That could be the way the bill has been drafted, to not actually involve the need for material resources, but I rather suspect that, in order to adequately implement a bill of this sort, extra money would be needed to make it effective.
I would like to ask my colleague whether or not he sees the lack of a bringing together, a convergence, of funding in the bill as a problem and whether or not that should be taken into account in any way at committee stage.
