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.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am honoured to be here to take part in this important debate, second reading of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

As members know, this bill is to create a Canadian victims bill of rights and entrench the rights of victims into federal law for the first time in Canadian history.

Victims of crime have been an important priority for our government since our election in 2006, and our contributions to improving the victim’s role in our justice system is well known and well documented. It is our contention that there are numerous ways, which we will present through the victims bill of rights, to continue down the path of enhancing our justice system and the victim’s role in that system. The creation of the federal victims strategy as well as the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, in 2007, are examples of our government's commitment.

Further, the allocation of $120 million as well as $10 million additionally for child advocacy centres in 20 locations throughout the country are examples of victims' programs specifically, as well as other numerous victims' law reforms and criminal justice reforms intended to enhance the experience of victims in the law.

Last year, our government promised to enhance victims’ rights by entrenching or embedding their rights in a single law at the federal level. We are delivering on that promise through the creation of clear statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution for victims of crime in Canada.

I want to unpack these concepts in more detail in a moment. Before I do, I want to emphasize again the inclusive effort to hear from Canadians.

My earliest days as Minister of Justice were spent consulting broadly and hearing directly from Canadians. In fact, we heard from more than 500 stakeholders through online and in-person consultations held across the country while developing this legislation. Most importantly, we heard from victims of crime themselves. Advocates, provincial and territorial officials, organizations, criminal justice associations, and criminal justice professionals, crown and defence counsel, law enforcement—all have provided views on this important legislation, participants all, and the Canadian victims bill of rights reflects that input, particularly those of provincial and territorial officials who have the important role and task of enforcement.

As well, we received a great deal of information and input during these consultations, specific to the reforms contemplated in federal, provincial, and territorial forums. Best practices from international, provincial, and territorial victims' legislation and programs were also contemplated. After much and thorough consultation and collaboration into this bill, we believe we have struck a very good balance.

I also want to recognize that each province and territory very much had that input, but we also drew from their own victims' services legislation unique to their provincial and territorial reality. All provinces and territories have legislation for victims of crime, which in some cases includes provisions worded as “rights”, such as a right to information, a right to consideration of personal safety, and a right to respectful treatment. The federal bill would not impede in any way existing provincial or territorial legislation but would, in fact, complement it or provide cohesion, while respecting constitutional divisions of power. It is important that we have this continuing and cohesive effort in building on the best of all efforts, across the country, to make the expression and inclusion of victims' rights more respectful, more user-friendly, and improve the lives of victims and their experience in our justice system.

Mr. Speaker, every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard. That is why we have included a broad definition of victim in the Canadian victims bill of rights. All individuals directly affected by an offence in a physical, emotional or economic way would be considered victims.

The bill would also enable individuals to act on behalf of victims who are deceased or who are incapable of exercising their rights.

Again, the rights proposed in this bill apply to victims involved in the Canadian criminal justice system. I think it is important here to read specifically from the bill that definition of victim:

It states:

“victim” means an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence.

Clearly, the intention here is to protect Canadian citizens or permanent residents who are abroad but were victimized in Canada, who could also invoke their rights. Victims who are in Canada, or Canadian citizens or permanent residents could also invoke their rights in a case where they were victimized abroad, but where Canadian officials are investigating or prosecuting the offence in Canada. These provisions would ensure a broad, inclusive application of the rights in circumstances where there is a clear link between the victim, the crime, and the criminal justice system here in Canada.

Fully implemented, the bill would also extend rights to every stage of the criminal justice process: during the investigation and prosecution of an offence; during the corrections process; during the conditional release process, or parole; and while there are proceedings in the courts and before review boards in respect of an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, or who is unfit to stand trial. However, the bill would also provide that the application of the rights cannot interfere with the police or crown prosecution's discretion and must be reasonable in the circumstances. In other words, this is a rubicon that we did not cross. Going back into the archives, this was in keeping with a parliamentary report entitled, “A Voice, Not a Veto”. That statement encapsulates the intent here.

Access to information was perhaps the most identified need by victims. Victims themselves, their advocates, and federal ombudsmen for victims of crime, and criminal justice professionals, such as the crown and police, often highlighted this need to ensure that basic information was flowing to victims and their loved ones.

Victims of crime seek information about the criminal justice system generally and their role in it. They also want specific information about their case and the decisions made by criminal justice professionals as the case moves forward.

This right to information would articulate that a victim has the right to meaningful information that affects them, such as conditions of release that pertain specifically to the accused in the case, or something as basic as the time, place, and date of proceedings taking place before the court that could impact on the victim. This would also include information about the criminal justice system, victims services programs, outcomes of criminal investigations and proceedings, and the status of an offender in the correctional system. The Criminal Code amendments that are proposed to implement this right would include the ability of the victim to receive copies of bail and conditional sentence or probation orders, physically ensuring that the victim is in possession of that information.

In addition, the bill proposes important changes to the Criminal Code provisions for plea negotiations, which is one of the more controversial elements, I suspect. For murder or any serious personal injury offence, the court would be required to ask the prosecutor if the victim had been notified of a plea bargain. For any other offence with a term of imprisonment of over five years, the victim could request to be notified of a plea bargain. The amendment does not give victims a veto over plea bargains. However, given the significant portion of cases with guilty pleas that are resolved in this fashion, this right to information would benefit a large number of victims at a key stage of the criminal justice process. I would suggest it would prevent any shock or further trauma to a victim to have that information in advance of any public announcement.

In order to help facilitate a victim's access to more information about available programs and services, one of the amendments in the bill would also require that Correctional Services Canada inform victims about the availability of victim-offender mandated mediation services.

Lastly, in order to enhance the information provided to victims, our government would create a single government website to make information about the Canadian victims bill of rights available to all Canadians and victims of crime.

Victim safety, including the enhancement of protection measures for victims, was also mentioned frequently by victims, their advocates, and professionals during the consultations. The desire to feel protected, safe from recrimination or retaliation, is an important right to recognize. Currently, there are numerous provisions in federal law to prevent or respond to harm to victims, but the creation of this right would build on a strong foundation and Canada's positive international reputation for the treatment of vulnerable victims, including in the courtroom.

The right to protection ensures that victims have their security and privacy considered in their interactions with criminal justice system officials. Proposed amendments to the code would broaden the availability of such things as testimonial aids, which are commonly known as “screens”, or closed-circuit television cameras to allow the victim to testify from a neighbouring room. This is also specifically to help protect victims from intimidation or retaliation throughout the proceedings and to provide that victims' safety and security would be taken into consideration through various means when making bail orders, for example, or when the offender were being released from custody.

Victims would be provided with access to a photograph of the offender at the time of the conditional release or end of sentence. This is a very practical and, I suggest, compassionate means to give victims information as to how they need to govern themselves or take protective measures. This is an important change for victims, and just one of the many changes that we would make to implement a victim's right to protection.

This right is strongly supported by many stakeholders, and victims identified this as an important need during the consultations, and we have listened. The benefits are numerous.

In order to provide meaningful participation and to give victims the sense that the criminal justice system will continue to respect their concerns and those of their loved ones, we wanted to underscore during the consultation that meaningful participation is also embedded in the bill. This is about recognizing the impact of victimization on the lives of victims and to help them understand what is sometimes a very complicated, foreign, difficult, and stressful process. The right to participation would allow the victims to convey views and to have those views properly considered by decision-makers when decisions are being made that affect them. This would be implemented through measures to clarify and broaden the scope of the victim and community impact statement provisions in the Criminal Code. Victims of crime have told us that they would support improvements to the victim and community impact statement provisions of the code.

For example, in this proposal, victims would be able to have a support person close to them while presenting their statement or community impact statement, and would be able to bring a drawing or photo or proximity of their loved one to the courtroom when presenting this statement. Again, this is a very compassionate, open-hearted way to allow the victim to draw comfort from proximity through these items. We have amendments to the Criminal Code that would clarify that a judge should consider those parts of a victim impact statement necessary to determine an appropriate statement.

When visiting a child advocacy centre, I saw something similar in intent. That was allowing children, for example, to have a pet or a stuffed animal, something that provided them comfort, with them during interviews with the police. Again, this emulates that same intention to provide individuals, child victims, comfort during what is inevitably a very stressful situation.

Also entrenching in this bill is the provision of guidance to victims on the creation of their victim impact statement through a mandatory form. These amendments would ensure that victims' voices were truly heard in the process.

The bill is also proposing important amendments to the purposes and principles of sentencing, to increase consideration of victims' views in that process. First, the bill proposes to reinforce the sentencing objective of denunciation in paragraph 718(a) of the code, by specifying that it is not only the criminal conduct that is being denounced, but also the harm to the victim and communities that has been caused by that conduct, which is a reality, I would suggest.

Second, the bill proposes to reinforce the sentencing principle of restraint in paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code that requires courts to consider alternatives to imprisonment where it is reasonable to do so.

Adding a requirement that the court also consider the harm done to victims and to the community would help to ensure there is a proper balance between the rights of offenders and those who have been victimized by offenders' behaviour. This would also bring sentencing principles in line with similar changes to the objectives of sentencing in paragraph 718(a).

In order to assist victims and allow them to choose how they would like to participate in the corrections and conditional release process, proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would allow registered victims to designate a representative to receive information on their behalf or waive their right to access to information. We know that in some cases victims want nothing more to do with the process after the victimization has occurred, and I would suggest that another general collateral benefit to this bill is that it would give victims more choice and control over their lives in a very stressful period.

We have listened very carefully to the views of many people who work in the justice system, including, as I mentioned, provinces and territories, and we are responding to some of the criticisms of the bill. For example, some have said that the bill does not propose to make victims a party to the criminal trial or create a right to receive legal aid. It is our view that these two items would create additional complications and potential delays, which is completely counterintuitive to what we are attempting to achieve here. Further delays or complications are very much in our minds as we bring this bill forward.

That is one of the great complaints of many in the system, that the time it took to proceed through the courts caused greater re-victimization. Therefore, we have very much intended to include measures that would reduce the delays in criminal proceedings without in any way contributing to the type of delay that we know is sometimes endemic in courts in the country.

The bill’s proposed right to participation seeks to strengthen existing and successful approaches that provide opportunities for victims to actively participate in the criminal justice system, and contribute to more effective decision-making by police, crown prosecutors and judges.

Victims of crime have expressed significant concerns about the financial burden that often places them in real hardship. Many have reported that as a result of the crime, they were unable to work and yet faced significant out-of-pocket expenses to continue attending criminal proceedings or to receive counselling. In 2008, a Department of Justice study estimated that the tangible and intangible social and economic costs of Criminal Code offences in Canada were approaching approximately $100 billion annually, and approximately 83% of those costs were borne by victims themselves.

There has been discussion about crime rates falling in Canada. In fact, there are over two million crimes reported annually and, sadly, one of the more shocking figures is that there has been a 4% increase in child sex offences, offences against children, our most vulnerable.

The bill will help to alleviate the financial burden of crime for victims by enabling victims to seek a restitution order, which obliges the offender to pay the victim for costs incurred as a result of the offence.

Specifically, this bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider restitution orders for all offences, to specify that an offender's ability to pay is not determinative in ordering restitution and to create, for accuracy, a mandatory form to help victims identify and claim their losses. As well, proposed amendments would specify that when any part of a restitution order is not paid, victims can have that order enforced as a civil debt.

Victims would be provided with assistance to help them enforce restitution orders through several program measures. For example, an electronic tool kit for victims would give them easier access to greater information about restitution; and financing and funding would be made available to the provinces and territories to develop their own restitution programs to help victims collect on those orders. This approach would enhance awareness and enforcement of restitution and provide victims with information and financial support. We know as well that many provinces and territories, in fact the majority, have the fine option program that will allow offenders to at least make some restitution to society at large, where they do community-type service.

In order to give meaningful effect to victims' rights by all players in our criminal justice system, our government is proposing that this bill have quasi-constitutional status. This would mean that the Canadian victims bill of rights would prevail over other federal statutes, with the exception of the Constitution Act, which includes the Charter of Rights and other quasi-constitutional statutes within our legal system, such as the Official Languages Act, the Privacy Act, and, of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act.

These other quasi-constitutional statutes will also exist on a level playing field with the Canadian victims bill of rights. As an example, courts must interpret the Official Languages Act in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If there is a conflict between these two quasi-constitutional statutes, the court would balance the rights in these two statutes.

During many of these consultations, we heard about the need to have enforceability behind the bill. We have provisions that pertain specifically to that in working with provincial ombudsmen and the discretionary judicial remedies that exist already.

Spousal immunity and other elements of this bill will, I know, receive due consideration. I would suggest that there is ample opportunity now to discuss the bill in greater detail as it proceeds to the House, and I look forward to the debate and hearing from members who are participating.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech, which reminds me of a Bee Gees song called It's Only Words.

All of the victims, every single one, told us that they need programs, support services, rehabilitation and compensation. However, in Bill C-32 , the government decided to abandon all of those pricey requests and opted for symbolism instead. I am wondering why that is.

I am also wondering why it took eight years to draft a text that contains no real legal obligations, as was attested to by officials from the Department of Justice. Bill C-32 does not create any legal obligation for crown prosecutors, police or support services to provide that information to the victims. It creates no binding legal recourse for the victims.

Did the minister get confirmation that Bill C-32 is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

Unfortunately, she has decided to trivialize this bill.

What we have before us is a very comprehensive effort to include what we heard through the past number of years, but more recently and specifically on this legislation, in an effort to balance the rights of victims, the entrenched protections within our criminal justice system, and the discretion necessary for the crown, police, and judges.

However, there is very much an increased and heightened obligation found within this bill. There are enforceable measures that include the discretion of the judge to ensure that the various individuals who have these obligations and responsibilities to victims follow through and there are mechanisms in place within every province and territory that allow for victims to seek recourse and follow up if they do not receive the proper treatment and information that they seek.

The member would probably be the first person in the House to stand here and criticize if the government tried to somehow go outside of its jurisdiction and demand of provinces something that is clearly within the constitutional rights of the provinces.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if one were to canvass the constituents I represent in Winnipeg North and the vast majority of Canadians for their opinions on what would constitute an important issue in the crime and safety file, quite often what would be raised is the fact that we are not doing enough to prevent crimes from happening. If we did more of that, we would have fewer victims.

My question to the member is related to the impact of this bill on police forces. I met with police representatives of the City of Winnipeg Police Service just yesterday. One of the concerns is that police put a lot of time and effort into areas that have nothing to do with actual police work. For example, it might be in a hospital institution or sitting in a court.

Would this bill do anything related to assisting our police officers in preventing crimes in the first place? It seems to be a high priority. If the bill would not, can the member indicate what the minister has done to assist that particular file?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very muddled question on the issue of victims' rights. I think the hon. member should go back to some of those constituents whom he represents in Winnipeg and ask them if they feel that victims are currently being given the right to inclusion, the right to respect, the right to information. That is what the bill seeks to do.

In terms of helping the police, the police are very supportive of this effort. Because they work every day with victims, they want to see improvements in the lives of victims and their loved ones.

As for what we have done, I am pleased to be joined in the House by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and I can tell the House that we have done a great deal to enhance the ability of police to do their work. In fact, I suggest that there is no government in the history of Canada that has included more police officers elected to the House of Commons to come here and ensure that we are doing more for the law enforcement community. We are giving them the tools they need, including legislative tools that will improve their ability to do their work and protect Canadians. Those improvements include the ability to share data, to have more forensic investigations, to improve their work environment.

This government has made tremendous strides in improving the way in which law enforcement and police officers can do their work in this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his first speech as we look at the victims bill of rights, Bill C-32.

I wonder if he could outline for us the extent to which the bill mirrors the recommendations that came from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. The Conservatives chose not to take some of the advice put forward by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. They obviously have taken on some of the recommendations, but not all. I wonder if he could set out for us why certain pieces of that useful advice was not included in the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very pertinent question, and we did, as she has alluded to, draw quite heavily on the recommendations of Sue O'Sullivan, the federal victims ombudsman.

As I mentioned in my remarks, many of the areas were seen as contentious. We would perhaps create further delays in the system and slow down the process by requiring the victims to have standing or to be able to insert themselves in a way that would cause the process to stop or to hesitate.

There are also resource implications. We have given the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime a budget. We have just recently expanded her ability to have signing authority in some areas.

This office itself, as I know the member opposite would recognize, was a creation of the current government. This office did not exist prior to our coming to government in 2006. We believe it is an enhancement, as is the role of ombudsmen at the provincial level. They will work collectively to ensure enforcement and ensure that the bill is giving meaning as well as the spirit of this legislation to enhance the role and the rights of victims. I look forward to the hon. member's further contributions.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for introducing the victims bill of rights. It was announced last week in my city of Mississauga by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I and my constituents believe that this measure addresses the real needs of victims. It will go a long way toward restoring and bolstering the faith of the people of my riding in Mississauga in our criminal justice system.

Prior to being appointed as Minister of Justice, the minister was one of Canada's longest-serving and most respected ministers of defence. I wonder if he could tell us if the victims bill of rights would apply to the military justice system.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to praise my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, for his work and leadership on this particular bill and for his ongoing efforts in that regard.

He is right to raise this issue, and it was something that we contemplated. This victims bill of rights will not in fact apply to offences investigated or proceeded with under the Canadian military justice system.

That said, there are particular challenges to extending this bill of rights into the military culture and into their system, particularly for summary trials. By that I mean that we have disciplinary tribunals that are administered by the chain of command. This system carries out the vast majority of proceedings within the Canadian military justice system, and this victims bill of rights would not be immediately applicable to it upon final adoption by the House.

However, I am pleased to tell my friend in the House that after speaking with the Judge Advocate General, General Blaise Cathcart from Nova Scotia, who is a very capable officer, and with people like Bruce MacGregor, who is also working in the JAG office, I can say the intention is clear that we will determine how we can in fact incorporate the victims bill of rights into our military justice system in the future in order to ensure that we are mirroring it to the best extent possible and to ensure that our military justice system also provides these benefits and protections for victims who are subject to the military justice system.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

First off, I am inclined to say that it is about time, since the government has been talking about this for awhile now. I know that the Minister of Justice likes to say that we decided to trivialize. This is not a matter of trivializing. I am simply stating the factual conclusions that everyone concerned about the issue of victims' rights here in Canada has already come to.

We are dealing with a Conservative government that has been talking about this issue for a long time and that has made serious promises in this regard. MPs who, like me, are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were able to hear from a number of victims as part of the debates on this issue held in the context of various law and order bills.

We sometimes heard very sad stories of a sensitive nature. This testimony helped us understand what needs to be done in terms of victims' rights and what victims need in certain circumstances.

The Conservative government has been promising to introduce this victims bill of rights for many years now. It has often dangled that promise in front of Canadians. The Conservatives have also held multiple press conferences in this regard, where they reiterated that they were in favour of introducing such legislation.

The official opposition is not trivializing. We are simply stating the facts.

If there is one thing that horrifies me, it is using already fragile individuals for political purposes. I do not want to impute motives, but these people have many, very specific needs. They have been speaking out about those needs for a long time. I will agree that the ombudsman for victims has already made recommendations.

I finally received Bill C-32 last week. I would like to digress for a moment to talk about the process. Bill C-32 was introduced on Thursday. Today, Wednesday, we are here in the House to begin debating the bill at second reading. It did not even take the Conservative government, through the Minister of Justice, even 24 hours to send out a householder to all Conservative supporters. I have good contacts who were able to show me that the Conservatives are already using the victims bill of rights to solicit interest in and support for the Conservative Party.

It always bugs me when people use something as serious as a victims bill of rights to generate political capital. I know that we are in the political business, but I think there are some issues that should not be used in this way.

All the same, I did thoroughly peruse Bill C-32. I wanted to give it a chance. The NDP always likes to give these things a chance. We always look at the bill and discuss it in caucus. At lunchtime today, I had the pleasure of talking to my colleagues about Bill C-32. I am not afraid to say here what I said to them: I was a little let down. When I read the bill, I felt that it did not really meet the needs of victims I had heard from.

It sounds good in principle, and we hope that something will happen in the courts, but it is not necessarily the guarantee or the cure-all victims thought it would be. The government did its very best to raise victims' expectations, and now I am sure they will be disappointed.

Kudos to the government for creating a victims bill of rights. Nobody in the House would be against that. I dare anyone to say that we are against victims. We brought forward some facts and we want to improve the process and the legislation. That does not make us anti-victim. On the contrary, we want to improve this bill to really meet the expectations of victims who expressed their opinion on this matter.

Could victims be disappointed in regard to certain expectations? Regardless of what the minister may think, anyone who was expecting the justice system to change, perhaps in terms of access to justice, will be disappointed, because there is not much in this bill to address that.

It does give victims certain rights when it comes to the possibility of being informed, being able to make comments, and so on. However, given how trial proceedings unfold, this bill is not necessarily the guarantee they were hoping for. This is not necessarily a mistake on the government's part. Rather, the mistake was letting victims believe that they could have that right. Indeed, people will be even more disappointed about that. I feel sorry for the first victim who invokes the victims bill of rights and then makes a particular demand based on that. Many courts of law will say that that is not how it works.

Let me say right away that the NDP will be supporting this bill at second reading. I hope we will have time to read it and study it thoroughly in committee.

At least there are ways to ensure that victims fully understand the limits and the scope of this bill of rights, so that they do not have any more false expectations than they might already have. Indeed, if they are relying solely on the headlines we see in some newspapers, they probably think they have acquired certain rights that they absolutely do not have.

There is another huge problem with this bill of rights. It has many limitations. Again, no matter what the minister says, the Conservatives inserted a section on complaints. In caucus, I used the analogy of the complaints system that exists in the provincial health care system. For instance, someone who goes to the hospital and is unhappy with the service they receive can file a complaint, and this has no binding effect on anyone. The bill of rights states quite clearly that, regardless of the context of a complaint, this does give the person exercising their right to complain any further legal rights. Therefore, this is not a legal remedy that would allow us to say that anyone who does not listen to victims could be penalized.

It is the same thing with restitution. The minister talked about it earlier. This is not the first time he has talked about this, but he made much of the fact that the cost associated with everything involving crime is somewhere around $100 billion and that the victims bear 83% of those costs. There is nothing in this bill, nothing in the budget, nothing anywhere to help victims where they really need it.

In committee, a mother talked to us about what happened after the murder of her daughter, who was in another province. Obviously, as the mother of someone who had been killed, she wanted to attend the trial. She had to pay her way to and from the courthouse. We know how long this type of trial can last. It cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Can I now tell her that thanks to the victims bill of rights, she can be compensated? There is not much hope for her.

Of course, members on the Conservative benches are going to say that when it comes to victims, certain things fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, there could have been a national agreement to send money to the provinces to provide victims the level of compensation they need. How many victims' compensation programs have been cancelled? How many programs are not really getting more money? The government is constantly throwing in our face the fact that it has invested $120 million. Just saying $120 million in the same sentence as the minister's $100 billion shows how inadequate all this is.

As far as restitution orders are concerned, I will provide an example for the victims watching us who think they will be compensated after a criminal trial. First, the judge will have the discretion to establish whether that is appropriate in the case at hand. Does the government really think that every accused person in our justice system has the means to pay restitution?

In life we have to be realistic. In some cases, my client is justified in suing, but the person to be sued does not have a cent. We can get the order we want, but we will not be able to execute it.

With respect to expediting the process, in a case where the court finds that, in the circumstances, it can order payment of a given amount by the accused who is found guilty, the order may not necessarily be automatic, even if it is desirable. We must not get peoples' hopes up. Otherwise, they will think that they do not need civil remedy. Nowhere does it say that this will be a court order. However, if there is an order, the person can have it executed before the provincial court that would deal with the situation at the civil level.

I like that because I have always found it ridiculous that victims have to testify in several criminal courts and have a parallel civil suit, which often has to start at the beginning. In fact, the civil proceedings must often wait until the criminal trial has been completed, and so forth. That just slows down the entire process.

For the victims listening to us, I repeat that they must not expect too much. There is no guarantee that they will automatically have rights that are as specific as those described by the minister.

We wonder about some of the bill's provisions. We will have to see what it is about. I was a little surprised to see the removal of the exception to the Canada Evidence Act concerning testimony by spouses. I am not against that, but I question the fact that the victims bill of rights is being used to make this change to the Canada Evidence Act. We shall see. I do not know why they are doing that all of a sudden. It could have been done in another way, but we shall see.

Furthermore, there is something that has been bothering legal experts, and I asked the minister a question about it but did not get an answer. I asked him whether he has confirmation that the Canadian victims bill of rights is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which takes precedence over this bill of rights and the Constitution.

Was any consideration given to testimony being provided under a pseudonym? This is allowed in some court cases for safety reasons, and I think everyone understands that. However, a number of these provisions already exist. They may not be codified as they are now in the bill of rights, but they already exist under the principles established by the statement for victims of crime that the federal government signed in 2003.

People are able to testify behind a screen for very specific reasons. The defence lawyer and the accused still have the right to see the persons involved, as long as there is no contact between them. The courts have some discretion in this regard.

As I said in the various panels I participated in after the bill of rights was introduced, I am very pleased—for once—to see that the government did not try to do what it loves to do with other bills, which is to take away the court's discretion to assess each case, since each case is truly unique. We must ensure that we achieve our goal without eliminating the fundamental concept of criminal law, which is the presumption of innocence.

In an article published in the National Post, Christie Blatchford, who is certainly no friend of the NDP, wrote a rather scathing criticism of the new Canadian victims bill of rights.

I would not want to misquote her, so here is the title of her article: “Victims need help? You must be kidding”.

In other words, it is tantamount to uttering a truism. It is true, but at the same time, if you read her article, you will see that many of these rights already exist.

In the courts, you often see crown prosecutors taking the time to explain the process to victims and talking to them about what they will have to get through. True, it is not the same everywhere. Still, it is also true that there is a major problem with resources in the courts considering the number of crown prosecutors and the number of judges.

These are very serious problems that this government should tackle if it does not want its whole law and order agenda to blow up in its face. Sooner or later, the government will have to be logical and provide resources. It will have to put its money where its mouth is.

That is the part that is always missing from government bills that talk the talk: they never walk the walk; they never give victims access to the resources they need in the courts.

Some do, sure. However, one of the major problems victims face is how slow the legal process moves. Until the government figures out how to fix that problem, it can put all of the principles it wants on paper, but it will never fix anything. The government has to improve access to justice so that the whole process can move faster. It has to ensure that neither the accused nor anyone else involved in a case has to wait too long.

Those who have some experience with criminal law know that victims often sit in the hall, waiting and feeling stressed because participating in the process is very stressful.

The minister is right when he says that not all victims will want to use this kind of service, but those who go to court—as witnesses, as victims, or just to ensure that everything is happening the way it should and to keep a close eye on every step of the process—would like to see justice served within a reasonable period of time.

When the minister appears before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we want to ask him about funding. We want to know how much money will be allocated to implementing the measures in this bill on the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Victims need psychological help as part of their rehabilitation. I am not talking about rehabilitating the person who has been found guilty. I am talking about the victim who, at some point, must cease to be a victim and move on. We need to give them a hand, and I believe that the responsibility falls to each and every one of us.

The minister can stand up and say that we can fix the situation with the help of the person who has been convicted. That is all well and good, but that person needs to have the means to pay, which is not always the case.

In that situation, should the victim just be abandoned? Instead, should we, as a society acknowledge that it is up to us to take responsibility, even though the government is not keen on the issue?

It is our collective duty to help victims overcome difficulties, not only in relation to the trial and the various criminal stages, but also in relation to their personal lives, so that they are no longer in that group of people who take on 83% of the $100 billion price tag.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

The NDP supports the principle of this bill and they support sending it to committee for further study. However, the comments that I heard did not criticize the substance of the bill.

I listened carefully to the member opposite and she appeared to criticize the fact that the bill had not come in soon enough, that it did not go far enough, but that it maybe went too far in other areas. I am still waiting to hear from her whether she sees actual improvements that could perhaps build upon the principle. Let us not forget for a moment that it is our government that is bringing forward a bill of rights to protect and enhance victims' participation in the system. No other government in the history of Canada has given the attention and focus this government has to the entrenchment of rights for victims.

She referenced, in fact, the issue with respect to spousal immunity. She would know that some 40 Criminal Code offences already waive spousal immunity, and we have gone further to ensure that all of the evidence in the truth-seeking exercises of the court can include the testimony of spouses for things such as murder, terrorism, and major fraud.

This is a bill that takes monumental steps forward in entrenching in one federal law the protection of victims. I would suspect that the members opposite would want to see this bill enacted quickly, and I look forward to working with her and other members to see this bill pass through the House and become the law of the land.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that I did not criticize the substance of the bill, but it is somewhat difficult to do that when the bill has no substance. That is basically what I am trying to say.

I hope he understands that I am extremely disappointed. After hearing what the government was saying, I got my hopes up, as did victims. Perhaps it is impossible to put everything down on paper, but if that is the case, stop holding press conferences just to blow hot air. The government is unable to deliver on the promises it made at the time.

That is the danger the Conservative government was facing. That is precisely the trap it fell into and that it set for itself. The government gave the impression that its Canadian victims bill of rights would fix every issue that victims are experiencing, but anyone who reads the document closely will know better.

The minister said that no other government has proposed such a bill of rights. I would like to believe that, but some provinces have moved faster than the federal government. They have already determined, in terms of their dealings with the courts, how this should be handled and how the various players in a criminal trial should work with the victims. The minister may not have stepped foot inside a courthouse in a while, but there are often people there who are specifically tasked with ensuring that victims know exactly where they are going.

As for spouses who could be called on to testify against one another, I am quite aware that this already exists in other legislation. That is what I was trying to point out. Why put this in a victims bill of rights when the Conservatives have already created other laws? Why not place it in the context of specific offences instead of in a victims bill of rights? That is the point I wanted to make.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my hon. colleague a question.

My question has to do with a specific topic, perhaps one of substance. It is about the fact that all victims have the right to information, upon request. The bill states a few times “only on request”. I think my colleague knows that under California's victims bill of rights, victims are given a card, and not just when they ask for it. Why are my colleague's thoughts on that, particularly for enhancing victims' rights?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the things that can be requested are written down. Asking is one thing; receiving is another.

Let me give you an example. On page 11 of Bill C-32, it states:

10. (1) Subsection 278.7(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) In determining whether to order the production of the record or part of the record to the accused, the judge shall consider the salutary and deleterious effects of the determination on the accused’s right to make a full answer and defence and on the right to privacy, personal security and equality of the complainant or witness, as the case may be, and of any other...

Victims can ask for certain things under the bill of rights, and that is fine. However, there are many qualifications attached. I am not saying this is bad; I am simply telling the government to stop pretending that this solves all the world's problems. That is not true. It should not be raising victims' expectations, for if they were to rely solely on the headlines in the media, they might think this is paradise. This is not the case, and the fall back to earth will be brutal.

That is all I have to say. Perhaps the government needs to change its rhetoric and use a tone that is a little more reserved, to stop making victims believe in things that do not exist.

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

Mr. Speaker, shortly before the bill was introduced, Andrew Swan, the Attorney General of Manitoba, mentioned that Ottawa would do well to create a national program in co-operation with the provinces.

We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it...[I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable — like Manitoba's support services office — then it is an empty gesture.

As my colleague mentioned several times in her speech, resources are the sinews of war. Without people in the field and without resources, a piece of legislation does not make any sense. I would like the member to comment on the Attorney General of Manitoba's statement.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Andrew Swan, who is an excellent attorney general.

He identified the problem even before the government introduced its bill, its victims bill of rights. I fully expect that the provinces and territories will be forced to deal with victims requests on a daily basis. People will also ask for all kinds of resources.

In that context, I hope that the Conservative government will be open to the requests. All the parties in the House agree that we should be helping the victims, but we have to do something tangible that will truly change their lives. Writing some things down on paper and indulging in hollow rhetoric is not going to cut it.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member say that she did not think the bill contained important new rights for victims. I had occasion to sit on the recently concluded Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, where we listened to the families of those victims from across Canada. Each and every one of them said that what they really needed was information on the investigation into their missing loved one, information about the prosecution of the person responsible for the murder or harm to their missing loved one.

We hear this from victims time and time again. My office in Mississauga was subject to an arson attack a number of years ago. If it were not for the media, we would not have heard anything about the investigation or the prosecution of the accused in that situation.

I wonder if the member could tell us what she thinks about the right to information in the bill for victims, information about both the investigative part of any crime done to them and the prosecution of a perpetrator after someone is charged with that crime.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to missing or murdered aboriginal women, we need to do more than providing some information to the families, who are desperately waiting. A public inquiry is essential.

A number of these rights, including the one my colleague just mentioned, already exist in some regions. I did not say that is bad. I am saying it has limitations and it must not interfere. The minister himself was clear: this must not interfere. People at the Department of Justice say the same thing: this must not compromise investigations, trials or the rights of the accused. Altogether, that creates rather weak legislation. That is all I am saying.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate and address Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which sets out a number of important rights for victims of crime, particularly with respect to information, participation, protection, and restitution.

For victims and their families, navigating the path of justice, from police services to the trial process to incarceration and parole, can be a very difficult ordeal, sometimes frightening and often costly. Victims may have experienced significant emotional or physical trauma as well as material loss, and most painfully, the loss of loved ones.

As such, it is critical that our justice system and related departments and agencies treat victims with respect and sensitivity, appreciate their concerns, and minimize their burden. To that end, the bill before us appears to be in most respects one more step in the right direction, and I commend the minister for this initiative.

I have certain concerns about aspects of the proposed legislation that I will discuss shortly, the substantive critique that the minister himself invited, but I am hopeful that these legislative aspects can be examined and, if need be, amended and refined at committee.

As I said, Bill C-32 is one more step because it builds upon past efforts across party lines, and as the minister mentioned, the initiatives by provinces, to improve the treatment of victims of crime within our justice system.

Indeed, the preamble of the bill references the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, which was first endorsed by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice in 1988 under a Progressive Conservative government, and updated and endorsed again under a Liberal government in 2003.

Shortly thereafter, as minister of justice, I was proud to introduce the Martin government's very first bill, which increased protections for children and other vulnerable Canadians against exploitation and abuse. In particular, that legislation facilitated the testimony of child victims and other vulnerable witnesses by providing for the more widespread use of testimonial aids and support persons, which the minister referenced in his remarks today. In fact, the legislation before us builds upon many of the very provisions that were enacted or enhanced at that time.

I was also pleased to introduce Canada's first ever legislation to specifically target human trafficking, the contemporary global slave trade with its multiply-affected victims. It is to the credit of this House that the battle to combat human trafficking and exploitation has been a multi-partisan effort. Indeed, the bill I introduced at the time passed unanimously, and in recent years I have been pleased to support efforts by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and the member for Ahuntsic to build upon that initial legislation.

There was all-party support as well for a 2005 bill that enhanced the national DNA data bank by authorizing judges to order DNA samples from those convicted of a number of serious crimes, including child pornography and offences related to underage prostitution. The national DNA data bank was itself created by the Liberal government in 2000, and has proven to be a valuable crime-fighting tool that has helped to protect vulnerable Canadians and to bring to justice those who would do them harm.

As regards the role of victims within the justice process, as minister of justice, I joined with the hon. Anne McLellan, the then minister of public safety, to establish a national office for victims in order to coordinate federal initiatives for victims of crime and ensure that their perspectives would be considered in the development of policy and legislation, which is a principle and process enhanced by this victims bill of rights act. We also set up a fund to help cover travel and accommodation costs for victims attending parole board hearings.

Moreover, and again with the support of MPs on both sides of the aisle, we enacted important measures to improve the treatment of victims in cases where the accused was found not criminally responsible. Those measures included protecting the identity and privacy of victims, allowing for the oral presentation of victim impact statements, and permitting the adjournment of review board hearings if victims needed more time to prepare.

Therefore, as I have said, I am proud not only of my own party's record when it comes to crime prevention and victims' rights—and here I reference as well the restorative justice initiatives—but also of the many instances in the past when members of all parties joined together in a spirit of collaboration and good faith to advance these important objectives and ideals.

I note with regret that public safety and victims' rights have sometimes been used as a wedge issue in an attempt to paint opponents of legislation that may have suspect constitutional policy grounds as being soft on crime or uncaring toward victims. Yet, victims are best served when we as parliamentarians focus on their interests rather than our own.

Many of the past bills to which I have referred were subject to thorough scrutiny and amendment at committee, a fact indicative not of the weakness of the legislation but the strength of the parliamentary process. I hope that the debate and study of Bill C-32 will likewise be open-minded and robust, as the minister appeared to invite.

In that vein, I will now turn to the legislation itself and to some of its aspects that merit further examination.

First, the bill would establish a number of victims' rights, divided into the categories of information, protection, participation, and restitution. As I said, I fully support the idea of extending these important rights to victims of crime. Victims must clearly be made aware of the rights and resources at their disposal, and they must, if they so choose, be kept abreast of the justice process from the investigative phase to the potential ultimate release of the offender, and at every point in between.

As well, the security of victims must be a paramount consideration, including the protection of their right to privacy and protection from intimidation and retaliation. Victims themselves should be able to share their views with the appropriate authorities within the justice system and to have, as much as possible, a meaningful role throughout the justice process. Finally, victims should be able to seek restitution where appropriate.

These are important rights contained in the legislation, to which I am pleased to lend my support and my party's support.

My concerns with respect to this section of the bill, and here I again relate to the minister's invitation regarding substantive critiques, are related primarily to the degree to which these rights are, in fact, enforceable. It is one thing to proclaim that victims of crime have this panoply of rights, however important that in itself is, but it is quite another to give them concrete expression by devoting adequate financial and human resources and putting in place an effective organizational infrastructure for recourse and remedy.

For instance, a House of Commons subcommittee studying victims' rights 14 years ago found that victims sometimes had difficulty contacting the right person within a government agency to access information to which they were entitled, and they occasionally received different or conflicting information from various sources within the same agency.

I mention this not to cast blame on any of the individuals who work at the Correctional Service , the Parole Board, or any other agencies that make up our justice system but to underscore the extent to which the resources in this system are already spread quite thin. As such, saying that a victim is entitled to information, protection, restitution, or a role in the process is important, and it cannot be underestimated. However, it is not the same as ensuring that they, in fact, get that.

Moreover, for rights to be meaningful, there must be appropriate recourse available in the event that they are infringed. However, the avenue for recourse as set out in Bill C-32 is merely a requirement that federal departments and agencies establish internal mechanisms to receive and review complaints and recommend remedial action. Again, it is not clear whether additional resources would be allocated to ensure that the complaint mechanisms would be effective, but neither is it clear what recourse, if any, victims would have if such internal complaint mechanisms did not resolve a situation to their satisfaction. This potential lack of recourse risks aggravating, rather than assuaging, the frustration of victims.

In short, having raised the expectations of victims of crime, the government is now responsible for meeting those expectations. I hope to hear more from the government, as the minister himself spoke today, about the concrete ways in which it intends to do so.

I will now move on to the Criminal Code amendments contained in this bill. For the most part, these amendments seek inter alia to protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses, to specify certain information to which victims are entitled, and to enhance the role of victims in the justice process. All of these objectives, as I mentioned earlier, are ones that I share.

There are, however, several clauses in this section of the bill that merit thorough examination at committee so as to ensure that their consequences are fully and accurately understood. To begin with, the bill proposes quite a broad definition of “victim” in the Criminal Code. The minister referenced this definition in his remarks.

The new definition would go so far as to include, in certain circumstances, an individual, and I quote:

...who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission of an offence against any other person.

I certainly understand the impulse to extend the protection and rights of Bill C-32 to as many Canadians as possible, but there may be a point at which a definition becomes so broad that it can be rendered unworkable. For example, if everyone who has suffered emotional harm because of an offence committed against any other person is entitled to make representations during sentencing proceedings or at a review board hearing, as provided for by this bill, might there not be a risk of overburdening the system and slowing down proceedings to the detriment of victims themselves? At the very least, when experts come before committee, this would be a question worth asking and clarifying.

Another element of Bill C-32 that should be carefully considered is the expanded access to publication bans with respect to court proceedings.

The safety and privacy of victims and witnesses are undoubtedly vital concerns. At the same time, requests for publication bans require resources to adjudicate and enforce. It is not evident that our justice system is presently equipped to deal with this change.

Again, to be clear, I do not mean to suggest that the change is problematic in and of itself, but we must investigate its implications and cost consequences and ensure that the government is prepared to make the necessary resource commitment.

Bill C-32 would also remove the protection of spousal privilege such that it would be possible to compel an individual to testify against his or her spouse. As the minister himself mentioned in his remarks, numerous exceptions to this privilege have existed in Canada for many years. This is, nevertheless, a long-standing legal principle, and it will be important to understand its operation and use to fully appreciate the impact, positive or negative, of its removal. Again, this would be a useful issue for committee deliberation.

Another possible area of concern regards the payment of restitution by an offender to a victim. In particular, the legislation would prohibit a court from considering an offender's ability to pay when making a restitution order. This would be a significant concern in cases where the offender is impoverished and no work program is available to him or her while incarcerated, not least because the victim would be unlikely to receive the restitution that he or she has been awarded by the court.

This particular provision echoes the government's unfortunate approach to the victim fine surcharge, whereby offenders are required to pay hundreds of dollars at sentencing, with no allowance made for those who simply do not have the money. Since the mandatory surcharge has come into force, judges across the country have had to find creative ways around it, such as allowing many years for repayment.

Bill C-32 would make an important change to the surcharge, requiring that it be paid either within a period determined by the province or in a reasonable time after its imposition. Yet what is “reasonable” may depend greatly upon the offender's ability to pay. Indeed, to cite certain real-life cases from recent months, it is unclear what would be a reasonable period of time in which to expect a homeless Ottawa teenager or a drug-addicted refugee from Sierra Leone to raise hundreds of dollars.

The wording would likely lead to even more court cases on this front, all of which would cost taxpayers more than any amount they would receive from the payment of the surcharge.

Another aspect of Bill C-32 that must be carefully considered concerns the important changes to sentencing principles proposed in the bill, which the minister referenced in his remarks. For example, Bill C-32 would add the protection of society as a fundamental purpose of sentencing in the Criminal Code. Yet existing sentencing principles already include “the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. As such, it is unclear what the government is seeking to achieve with this seemingly redundant provision.

I hope that the justice committee will hear from criminal law experts about any possible effects of this change.

The bill would also add the denunciation of harm done to victims as a purpose of sentencing, an addition that raises similar questions, in particular how this denunciation would be achieved in a manner distinct from the denunciation of the conduct at issue and whether the impact of such a double denunciation would simply be to increase prison sentences across the board, regardless of whether such punishment fit the crime.

Finally, Bill C-32 would change the provision that underpins the Gladue principles of sentencing for aboriginal offenders. These principles currently require the courts to consider “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances”, particularly with respect to aboriginal offenders, notably in recognition of the serious problem of the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in Canadian prisons.

Importantly, the Gladue principles do not automatically reduce an aboriginal offender's sentence, nor do they permit aboriginal offenders to escape serious punishment for serious crimes. The principles have, however, been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2012.

However, Bill C-32 would appear to limit the application of the Gladue principles by specifying that the sentence must be “consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community”.

At the very least, this raises questions about the extent to which a sentencing principle meant to facilitate rehabilitation should be marginalized in favour of a more punitive approach. It would certainly be appropriate for experts in aboriginal justice to testify at committee on this point.

Nevertheless, in spite of these areas of potential concern, I will support sending the bill to committee for further study.

As I said earlier, I hope that committee members will engage in that study with the seriousness and responsiveness the subject demands and that the government, as it appears to indicate, would be open to amendments.

Before I conclude, I will turn briefly to measures not included in the bill that could be as important, if not more so, when it comes to respecting victims of crime and to preventing Canadians from becoming victims in the first place.

In our focus on domestic victims of crime, we must not forget that there are Canadians impacted in serious ways by crimes that have occurred abroad. In this regard, I remain troubled by the government's stance on state immunity. Thus far, it has acted to limit the number of state entities Canadians can sue for terror.

While I was pleased that the government adopted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act just a few short years ago, the government has only listed two states Canadians can sue. Even then, it did not initially seem disposed to helping Canadian victims get justice prior to American claimants seeking to enforce foreign judgments regarding Iran in Canada. There must be a more equitable process for victims than the current listing mechanism that places the entirety of its discretionary authority in the hands of the minister. While I will not dwell on this point, I do hope the government will reconsider its position on this issue. As well, I trust that the protection will be expanded to include not only victims of terror but also victims of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, which I have referenced in a private member's bill otherwise before this House.

Earlier I mentioned the importance of keeping Canadians from becoming victims of crime to begin with, the prevention principle. Regrettably, the government has not put sufficient emphasis on prevention in its approach both to victims' rights and to public safety in general.

To reduce the incidence of crime, we must combat factors that we know are linked with crime, such as issues of poverty, addiction, and mental health. Efforts in this regard require significant resource commitments and a conception of public safety that goes beyond punitive measures.

This brings me to the final area of concern. Bill C-32 contains no provisions about data sharing and collection or about developing best practices and guidelines such that victims' rights are understood in a way that is meaningful and consistent. It might be appropriate to require an annual report on the bill so that we know how many complaints are raised with respect to each right and how many are resolved to the victims' satisfaction, while enhancing federal-provincial co-operation in this regard.

In closing, I am glad this legislation is before us. While I have some concerns regarding particular clauses, I will be voting in favour of the bill at second reading, and I encourage others to do the same. We all have a part to play in supporting victims of crime. While Bill C-32 could be stronger and more effective, and I trust that at the end of the process it will be, it is one more important step in the right direction.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, my friend from Mount Royal, for a very thoughtful, constructive speech. He has raised some very important points.

Embedded in his remarks is the reality that this will be an incremental effort. He has also alluded to the fact that this, like many initiatives, will build on previous efforts and build on existing provincial-territorial infrastructure when it comes to victims. It is the living tree analogy.

The member also embodies my own sentiment, and that is that we should not let the perfect get in the way of the good. What we are attempting to do here for victims is a very important non-partisan effort.

In the brief time I have, I want to respond quickly to a couple of concerns about existing mechanisms.

There are resources. There has been a commitment made in the federal budget with respect to the necessity to improve upon existing mechanisms at the provincial and territorial level. We do not want to duplicate the effort where we do, in fact, have some of those mechanisms in place already.

We have also heard from a lot of victims about the necessity of trying to help them collect, as the member alluded to, with respect to restitution. That dovetails with other efforts we have put in place with respect to mandatory and doubled victim fine surcharges.

As well, with respect to examining, I know that the member himself is very much an internationalist in his view. We have looked outside of the country as well when it came to the enforcement mechanisms. We have looked to the United Kingdom, the United States, of course, Japan, and the European Union as to ways in which we could include the right to information, financial redress, and attendance at court proceedings. We found that very instructive.

We have also benefited from input from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who will provide some of the recourse and the redress to which the member alluded. If there are failings within the provincial and territorial system, we will look to that federal ombudsman's office to assist victims in trying to alleviate their concerns.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his remarks and his contribution to the debate. I indicated that he did make references in his remarks regarding the matter of resources, and as I said, we look forward to the institutionalization of important resource allocation with regard to the four substantive rights and their enforcement, as are set forth in this legislation.

In the matter of victim surcharges, I do not want to repeat what I have elsewhere said in this House, or even in my remarks today. However, there remain problems, as I said in my remarks, about that principle of “reasonable”, and particularly the importance of maintaining judicial discretion in that regard.

Finally, the minister mentioned going abroad internationally and the matter of enforcement, and I commend him for that. I just want to mention my particular concerns regarding victims in Canada of crimes perpetrated abroad. While reference has been made to civil remedies for victims of terror, we need to expand this to remedies with regard to victims of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I hope the minister might consider that as we go forward with this bill, as well as other amendments that will be going before the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague the same question I asked my colleague from Gatineau.

Before Bill C-32 was introduced, the Attorney General of Manitoba, Andrew Swan, said that Ottawa should establish a national program together with the provinces. We know just how much the federal government tries to hand over matters to the provinces. Mr. Swan clearly said that the federal government must not pass laws and then wash its hands of them. If the government does not set up an entity to implement this bill, like the Manitoba Victim Rights Support Service, it is a meaningless bill.

My colleague is a former justice minister. He understands the provinces' situation and I would like him to tell us whether he agrees with the comments made by the Attorney General of Manitoba.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the co-operation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments is a fundamental requirement for this bill and it is the point of the comments made by the Attorney General of Manitoba. I said in my comments that there must be co-operation.

The minister said that this bill was also based on provincial measures. I hope that the federal government will work not just with the provincial governments, but also with the people and witnesses that will appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we study this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Mount Royal will have four minutes in questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this matter.

The House resumed from April 9 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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote:

A charter of the rights of victims will finally see the day in Canada. As an organization that has been advocating for the rights of families and their missing children since 1985, we salute our government's efforts. The voices of our families have been heard...victims will now be at the centre of the judiciary system in our country.

Those are the words of Pina Arcamone, Director General of the Missing Children's Network. This organization assists families who are dealing with the disappearance of a loved one, which does happen. They can turn to this organization for support.

I have another quote:

The Harper government has kept its promise to victims. Since coming to power, the Harper government has promised to help the victims of crime. Today, we can say that that mission has been accomplished thanks to the introduction of the victims bill of rights act. It is a first in Canadian history....We welcome this new bill and actively support it.

Alain Fortier, the co-founder of Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin, or VASAM, is the person who said that. I had the privilege of meeting him just a few weeks ago, in the days following the introduction in the House of the Canadian victims bill of rights and the bill to bring it into force by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

Maybe some members will be watching the hockey game tonight instead. That reminds me that when I was born, it was right in the middle of the Canadiens’ final. The gynecologist who was attending my mother during her delivery was a little distracted. I can understand that tonight, some people are watching the Canadiens’ game. I started my speech between the first and second periods, so I would like to add my voice to a lot of people in Quebec and Canada who hope the Canadiens will win tonight.

While our glorious Habs defend the Montreal Canadiens’ honour on the ice, I want to say that I am glad to be here tonight and that I feel privileged to add my voice to the voices of Pina Arcamone, the director general of the Missing Children’s Network in Quebec, and Mr. Fortier, in supporting our government's initiative, the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Since 2006, our government has been committed to putting victims at the centre of our judicial system. The Minister of Justice introduced the bill. I was there with him, along with the Prime Minister and his wife and victims of crime like Sheldon Kennedy. This former hockey player played in the National Hockey League and was a victim of sexual assault while he was in the minor leagues, and he suffered the after-effects.

However, he decided to transform that pain into a constructive force. He was by our side to support the efforts by the government and by Canadian society to encourage victims to speak out and transform their painful experiences into sources of inspiration for other victims, to help them. Today, in fact, Sheldon Kennedy is the founder of a centre that helps other people who have been victims of assault.

This charter contains four important principles whose aim is to ensure that the fundamental rights of victims are recognized: the right to information, which has too often been ignored; the right to participate in the various stages of the judicial process; the right to protection; and the right to restitution.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, manages the judicial process, and as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, I have the privilege of ensuring that the other aspects of our legal, judicial and policing systems are taken into account in the Canadian victims bill of rights. That is what I would like to talk about this evening.

For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police works on crime scenes after a crime is committed. Correctional Service Canada ensures that offenders serve their sentences. Then there is the Parole Board of Canada. I often say that these entities are the arms and hands of justice.

It is important to ensure that victims are taken into account from the time the crime occurs to the moment the legal process is set in motion and the accused is found guilty, serves his sentence and is then freed.

A number of my colleagues have introduced private member's bills to ensure that our system works harder.

Our government has put laws in place, and the Canadian victims bill of rights solidifies and confirms this important change. The bill gives victims the opportunity to take ownership of the bill of rights and write the new law. The new Canadian law will take victims' rights into consideration. That is why this bill is worthwhile, and I hope to have the support of all members of the House.

I think that this bill transcends party lines, since it not only includes fundamental principles, but it also gives victims tools and practical measures.

Extensive consultations were held across the country to develop the Canadian victims bill of rights. I had the opportunity to participate in consultations in Montreal and Quebec City. Victims spoke up and told us what they wanted to see in the bill. This followed up on the commitment we made in the throne speech and that we mentioned in many of our communications with the public.

Who are these victims?

Floyd Wiebe's son, T.J., was murdered in 2003. He has had to deal with the challenge of trying to find out more information about the situation around his son's killer. He said that all victims want is honesty, information, and to be treated with respect.

Well, it is about time for this country to deliver on the expectation of those victims to have access to information and to be treated with respect.

When I went back to Quebec City the day after introducing the Canadian victims bill of rights, I had an opportunity to meet victims, including one whom most people would be unlikely to think of as a victim: a law enforcement officer. She was a police officer who, in the course of fulfilling her duties as a first responder, was stabbed in the face. She was severely injured. Her attacker was later granted parole and transferred to a halfway house just a few blocks away from where the victim lived. That is the kind of thing we want to put an end to. Victims need to feel protected, not just while the offender is serving time, but also once he has served his sentence and is back in society. That is why we need the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The government took the consultations very seriously. We worked hard to draft a bill that will enable victims to get the resources and information they need when they need it.

That is why we consider this bill to be historic. It is a milestone. The scope of the bill is quasi-constitutional: the Canadian victims bill of rights. The purpose of this bill of rights is to ensure transparency for victims, to ensure that they are fully aware of their rights in relation to the criminal justice system and correctional services.

Once a crime has been committed, it is important for police authorities to inform victims of their rights. This is the mechanism for that. Of course, our police officers have to catch criminals and conduct investigations, but they also have to take victims into consideration. A victim is anyone who has been subjected to physical, emotional or financial harm.

Victims must be taken into account when such actions are reported and police investigations begin, as well as at sentencing, during reviews throughout the offender's incarceration and upon release.

As I mentioned, public safety agencies have an important role to play throughout this process. Therefore, we are proposing changes to how they undertake their work with victims.

Yes, victims want to have better access to the justice system, to be able to choose the information they want to have and to decide at which points they want to interact with the system.

Those four pillars are critical.

The first one is the right to information on demand, such as the status of investigations and criminal proceedings and their outcomes. They would also have a right, on demand, to information about the conditional release of the offender.

Second, victims would have the right to protection. This would include their physical security, protecting them from intimidation and retaliation, as well as ensuring that their privacy would be considered.

Third, victims would have the right to participation. This means ensuring that victims of crime have a voice at the heart of the justice system and can convey how they personally have been impacted by crimes.

Fourth, they would have the right to restitution. By this, we mean that the court would have to consider making a restitution order and if that order were not paid, victims would the right to have that order enforced as a civil debt.

Consequently, incorporating these rights into the bill will change the way many organizations do their job. This is what is referred to as part 2 of the bill, under Public Safety. This will not only apply to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also to Correctional Service Canada, the Parole Board of Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

As far as the RCMP is concerned, under this bill, victims of crime will have the right to obtain information on the progress of a criminal investigation, from the time when the crime is reported or at the start of the investigation. Victims will not be left in the dark, which was the case for Senator Boisvenu, to whom I wish to pay tribute this evening.

For Senator Boisvenu, this bill is the culmination of what motivated him to enter politics. I consider myself highly privileged, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, to be able to benefit from the expertise, commitment and the passion of Senator Boisvenu in recognizing the rights of victims within our judicial system. He was of course in Toronto, participated in the consultations, and was also in Quebec City with Officer Sandra Dion celebrating the introduction of the bill on the Canadian victims bill of rights.

If I go back to the RCMP, the RCMP already provides information to victims, as well as referrals to victims' services. It is important for victims to know there are those great organizations and services provided, often by provinces, to help and support victims. The RCMP also takes into account a victim's need for protection throughout the investigative and judicial process.

The police and other investigators are usually the first point of contact for victims of crime. By enshrining in law the rights of victims to information, we are acknowledging that police have an important role to play and recognizing just how crucial it is to provide victims with as much information as possible over the course of a criminal investigation.

Under the Canadian victims bill of rights, Canada Border Services Agency investigators would also be affected because they would be responsible for respecting a victim's right to information and to participate in the criminal justice process. For example, the agency would be required to provide victims with updates about the status of criminal investigations related to immigration fraud.

Further, the CBSA would commit to expeditiously sharing information with the Correctional Service of Canada to ensure that registered victims of the federal offenders would be informed when an offender has been removed from Canada, subject to any privacy concerns.

These are major changes affecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Now let us look at what happens when a victim is involved when the offender is granted parole. The Canadian victims bill of rights states that a victim is entitled, upon request, to information on an offender who caused them harm. That is one of the four pillars of the bill. This right extends to information on the offender’s parole, for example, if the offender is indeed eligible.

Correctional Service Canada is already in the process of developing tools to provide victims with access to this information and, of course, to enable them to take advantage of modern technology, while respecting standards of confidentiality and privacy, and creating an appropriate environment for victims to access information.

However, this right does not extend to all the information available on the offender. For example, a victim would not have the right to access information of a highly personal nature, such as medical and psychological files, and associated reports. This information would specifically be excluded for reasons of privacy.

While registered victims will not be able to access information that does not pertain to the offence, the Canadian victims bill of rights would provide a registered victim with the right to access information that would be important to them, such as information about the offender's release into the community.

When and where will the inmate be returned to the community? Also, are there conditions imposed on him when he is released? That is fundamental information that victims will have access to through a data bank and special access.

We know that the information most frequently requested from either the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada is related to the offender's release date, destination and conditions of release.

That information will be available.

Victims also want to know whether the offender has made progress toward social reintegration during his sentence. They want to know whether the offender is taking measures to address the factors that led to his criminal behaviour. Victims will also have access to this information because we are amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act precisely in order to allow victims to get more updates on offenders' progress.

I have to say that this is a far cry from the Liberal era, when a former solicitor general even said that we must put the rights of criminals before the rights of victims. That is totally unacceptable in a society where the cost of crime is so high. It is time for us to work together to correct this situation and pass the Canadian victims bill of rights to ensure that our country puts victims at the heart of our justice system again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his presentation. It is very interesting, and it is clear that the bill deserves our attention. We must improve the situation for victims in Canada. If the government's initiative is serious, then we will be able to improve things for them.

However, the Conservatives themselves said that justice is expensive. Access to justice is also very expensive for victims. There is not a single penny that comes with the charter being presented today. How are less fortunate victims going to access all these fine programs? They are going to have a tough time.

For those who have money, so much the better. I have no doubt that those victims will benefit from this initiative. However, less fortunate victims are not just victims of crime. They are victims of the fact that they are less fortunate. How are they going to have access to justice? What is there in this bill to help them?

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question and his interest in the bill. I would like to respond with three elements and give him a concrete example that I forgot to mention in my speech.

When the offender is released, the victim, as I mentioned, will have access to three pieces of information: the offender's release date, destination and conditions of release.

There is one other very important element, and that is the fact that the victim will have access to a photo of the offender via a secure portal. We were told that those elements are important to victims.

As for the cost, we must not forget that Quebec and other provinces have made numerous programs available. There are also many organizations that help victims. Of course, we are adding a financial component with the principle of restitution.

We also have to understand—and this is often forgotten in our justice system—that the cost of crime is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars. That is important. In putting victims at the heart of the justice system again, we are taking those costs into consideration.

That is why we always need to remember that our justice system must also protect victims from criminals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister has said. One of the concerns I have had in relation to victims is whether the government is doing enough to prevent victims in the first place. When I have the opportunity to have discussions with many of my constituents, they want the government to be more aggressive at coming up with proactive programming, encouraging activities that would lead to fewer victims. I think all Canadians want that.

For me, this is an opportunity to get onto the record an important issue. I believe the government could be doing more. The minister might want to respond, specifically, to the importance of preventing victims in the first place. I realize it is not necessarily overly relevant to the bill, but it is an important aspect. I would be interested in his comments on that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, reducing crime at the source pertains to the debate tonight. That is why this government has been so keen on making our streets and communities safer by strengthening our laws. We wish we could have benefited from the support of the opposition member, but unfortunately, that has not materialized.

Numbers show that in this country, the crime rate is steadily declining. This is reassuring for Canadians.

With respect to recidivism, those serious criminals who commit repeated offences need to stay behind bars. That is why we have introduced minimum sentences for those specific offences. They are only a tiny portion of crimes. Minimum sentences are important so that honest people are not bothered by criminals.

There is another point I would like to raise. We have a broad national crime prevention strategy. We are working to prevent youth from getting involved with youth gangs. We are also planning to move forward on a strategy to tackle organized crime. This is a challenge.

One dollar invested in prevention and fighting crime is billions of dollars saved. Not only is money saved, but lives are not broken by criminals.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister would be so kind, I would like him to go back to Senator Boisvenu, who before he became a senator was on the streets of Montreal speaking against human traffickers in Quebec. In his life, he turned a great tragedy into a great triumph. The victims bill of rights is important, and Senator Boisvenu had some input into it.

Could the minister please comment on the senator's input on this particular bill of rights?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about being in politics and being on this journey is being able to meet exceptional people. I was certainly privileged to meet with Senator Boisvenu.

I also want to pay tribute to a member of the House who is so committed to fighting human trafficking, which is the worst form of crime in this country. It is modern slavery. I am speaking of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She is the one who brought this to reality.

It was the member for Kildonan—St. Paul who made me realize that human trafficking is a reality. It definitely existed in Canada in the 2000s, just as it did in 2010 and it does in 2014.

In fact, Senator Boisvenu, Justice Andrée Ruffo and I marched together in the streets of Montreal to ensure that predators—those who prey especially on minors and often lead them into prostitution, drugs and exploitation—are brought before the courts and subject to minimum sentences.

In that regard, I believe that the member has done much more than is required of an elected official, because she has championed this cause. It is inspiring for all parliamentarians. Her work is very relevant to the victims bill of rights, as is that of Senator Boisvenu. As we know, he was struck by tragedy: a repeat offender killed his daughter.

Senator Boisvenu has worked to ensure that other Canadians do not go through the same trauma. That is why he is campaigning very methodically and rigorously for the recognition of victims' rights. I am thinking, for example, of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

Once again, I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. I encourage her to continue her work because Canada needs women like her to support the most vulnerable people in our society, including victims of sexual assault.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in favour of the bill before us, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts. I am supporting it at second reading, because I see some real potential here, and I am hoping that when it gets to committee, it will get the kind of work it requires so we can really address the area of victims' rights. We want to support victims of indictable offences in a real way. We also want to make sure that this charter is not simply a statement of principle that will never be implemented and will just gather dust on some shelf.

This bill outlines the federal right of victims of crime to be informed, to be protected, to participate, and to receive compensation under the Canadian victims bill of rights, and it proposes modifications to the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Canada Evidence Act to incorporate these rights.

I think this is really important for us to pay attention to. Bill C-32 establishes no legal obligation on those working in the criminal justice system to implement these rights. One thing I have learned over the years is that to have rights on paper does not guarantee too much, because what we need to go along with the rights given to us in legislation are also the tools so that those rights can be implemented and we can benefit from what legislators pass.

We often hear, and I have heard this a number of times, that my colleagues across the aisle truly want to make victims a priority, despite the fact that it took them eight years and many photo ops and press releases to get to the point where they put pen to paper and tabled something before this House. We have to spend some time looking at why it has taken this government that long a time to bring forward this bill, when it has talked about it for such a long time.

It is no secret in this House that the NDP has always supported the rights of victims. We will continue to consult with victims groups and experts to determine how we can best assist them. On this side of the House, we have no allergy to expert opinion, to data, to research, or to listening to the health professionals who work with victims. They know a lot about this.

As members know, I have been a teacher most of my life, and in that role, I was also a counsellor in a school. I often dealt with young adults who were victims of crime and with their families as well. I became aware of the deplorable lack of services that exist to support victims, so this has been a topic that has been close and dear to my heart for a number of years. I am glad to see that the government will be moving on it.

One of the things I also became aware of when I was a high school counsellor is how few resources there are out there. I do not know if members are aware of this, but the federal government has often relied on the provinces to provide some of these resources and services to support victims. However, the provinces are feeling stretched to the limit. We are hearing from them that the downloading of the refugee health care costs is putting a huge burden on the provinces. We have heard that from the premiers, from citizen groups, and from the medical profession as well. That is one example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

There have been other things, as we know, such as health care costs and all kinds of responsibilities. Under this government, the costs have been downloaded to the provinces to carry out. They only have so many resources.

I was reminded today of something that happened in B.C. In the beautiful province of British Columbia, we actually have a Liberal-Conservative coalition government. They call themselves Liberals, but even my colleagues across the way would admit that they are just as conservative as those sitting across the way. That government has cut the victims' criminal injuries fund. That is the fund that would be used to support and provide services to victims. I am hearing that because of financial pressures, some provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador,have eliminated that fund altogether.

I worry that we are setting expectations very high and are not going to be able to deliver those services, because there seems to be very little attached to this piece of legislation that would actually lead to any kind of implementation resources. Without those resources, all we are left with, and this I think we can agree on, are principles in proposed bills and charters. How will those play out? What kind of support will be available to the victims?

We have discovered this over and over again when we have seen legislation brought forward and we have thought that at last the government is going to address this issue. It is going to fix this. However, what I have discovered at various committee meetings is that it is not that easy, because with this government, the devil is always in the details. In this bill, it is the lack of details and resources that really hit us.

It is because of that that we are supporting this bill at second reading. We want to see what we can flesh out at committee stage. There is no way the government across the way is going to get a blank cheque on this issue without actually putting some resources on the table.

We will study the bill. We are not allergic to experts. We are going to invite experts. My colleagues across the way will invite experts, and we will listen to their opinions. We will read the data they have, and we will listen to the victims. Based on that, we will make sure that we put forward amendments so that the bill will really respond to victims' needs.

One of the things that struck me even before I decided to run as a member of Parliament was that we have had a government for a number of years that has been making all kinds of promises and often portrays itself as a law and order government. More recently, in the throne speech, it promised this bill. This has been in its platform since 2006. We are glad it is here now, but let us really take a look at what it means.

When I hear the term, “a government of law and order”, I really have to shake my head. I heard the minister speak earlier, and I was thinking that there were commitments made in the last election to put additional police out on the streets. In my beautiful province of British Columbia, in my riding of Newton—North Delta, in Surrey and North Delta, my constituents tell me over and over again that they are feeling betrayed because the government did not deliver the additional policing it promised.

However, I am the first one to say that policing is not the only answer. We have to look at many other ways of tackling crime in our neighbourhoods.

I have regular coffee shop meetings with my constituents, and because of a horrific murder in my riding, the 26th in a year, the community galvanized. There have been many meetings, and at every meeting my constituents tell me that they do not feel very safe and they are very worried. Seniors tell me that all the time.

I heard the minister on how we can save millions or billions of dollars with preventative programs. I would say that here is an example of where we are failing to put more police on the streets and look at prevention programs.

It is interesting that the minister strongly supports prevention, but when I talk to the huge range of different service providers in my riding,I find that their program support services are being cut dramatically, some by 100%. A lot of the services that used to be available to help youth reintegrate into society, lead a positive lifestyle, and enter into meaningful employment have not been funded or have been cut.

When I look at the mental health services that are available, I do not actually see any investment, even though we all stand in this House and talk about the great cost of mental health issues across our communities to our health services, our social services, and our penal system. We are all aware of that. Once again, where are the resources to help those who suffer from mental illness? Where are the resources, in a serious way, for those who are dealing with addictions, so that we can help them once again lead a more successful life? I have heard a lot about this.

I have a lot of respect for my colleague across the way, who has done a lot of work on human trafficking. I think everyone in this House would agree that it is a heinous crime and something we need to tackle in a serious way in the international community, because it is an international problem and we need to play our part.

Today we are talking about victims. What is it that victims need? Victims have been telling us that they need access to services and they need support. Many of them also want access to parole hearings and to be informed about the status of prosecution. They just want to know where the case is at.

A mother whose child died very tragically would check in with me regularly, asking if so-and-so was about to come up for parole. Every time parole came up, that mom went through all the pain and agony as if it had happened just that day.

We do not need to provide patronizing words. We need to provide real support and real processes that are going to work. It is not just for the sake of politically saying that we have this bill and we have done our piece, because until we provide the resources and put mechanisms in place to implement the bill, it is just words. I really do not want victims to feel further victimized because they feel that we played some kind of game with them.

I will read some quotes.

This is what Steve Sullivan, the first victims ombudsman, had to say about the bill on the CBC news on April 3, 2014. What he said rings alarm bells for me and makes me look at the bill more closely.

The former victims ombudsman charged Thursday that the Minister of Justice has over-promised and under-delivered on the Conservative government's victims bill of rights.

Those are not easy words for anyone to say, but I can see why he would have said that when he saw that there were no resources attached to this bill.

Also, there is Lori Triano-Antidormi, a mother of a murdered child. I cannot imagine the pain that this mom has gone through. She said this to CBC news on April 3, 2014, just last month. She stated that not everyone believes the bill will be effective. She went on to say that the bill will create false hope for victims.

We have to remember that Lori Triano-Antidormi is not only a victim of crime, but she is also a psychologist and helps to treat others.

The article further stated:

“My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system,” she said. She says that, right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. “The crown has the final say.”Triano-Antidormi said if the government were to make that change, it would only fuel vengeance in the victim “which from a physiological perspective doesn't help their healing or recovery.”

I can only imagine the kind of pain this mother suffered. Despite all her personal pain, she has asked us to reflect on what we are doing here, and I am sure we will be doing that when we get to the committee stage.

L'Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on April 3, 2014, basically said that this bill may provide real leverage and not just a false promise to be dangled before our eyes. However, then it went on to say it really rests on making resources available to victims once their rights have been infringed.

Once again, we keep going back to that resource item. Without that resource item, it points to how hollow this bill could be.

It went on to say the governments have a responsibility to recognize victims' rights, but also to help them exercise those rights. Just stipulating the rights without providing assistance for that next stage makes it very hard and almost hollow, so the association is very worried about that.

Clayton Ruby, criminal law expert, said:

They need rehabilitative programs and services, and compensation from the government, and they’ve dropped all those expensive demands in favour of shallow symbolism.

Frank Addario stated:

...the...government’s agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect.It’s cynicism masquerading as policy.

I am going to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt because when we get to the committee stage to try to fix this bill with magnificent amendments, I know the Conservatives will pay attention and listen to some of the concerns we have. I am hoping they have been paying attention to some of the feedback out there as well, not just to the bits they want to hear but also to the rest.

Sharlene Lange, a victim's mother, stated:

Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth....Rights need to go beyond the criminal process for this bill to even be a bill of rights.

She said she will continue to lobby until true financial compensation for victims exists.

There is absolutely no doubt that we need a bill of rights for victims. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice Canada found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.

With that in mind, I would urge my colleagues across the way to look at amendments at the committee stage, seriously consider what the bill really means, and make sure that resources and implementation mechanisms are in place so that victims truly feel supported and this does not turn out to be a sham.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and for her indication that she would be supporting the bill at second reading and allowing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which I sit on, to examine the bill in detail. I can assure her that the bill will be examined in detail by her colleagues and mine and by colleagues from the other parties at committee.

The member mentioned that we need to listen to the victims, and she quoted a few of them. She may know of Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son was tragically murdered by Clifford Olson many years ago. She has been a tireless advocate for victims of crime for many years and she started an organization called Victims of Violence.

After the introduction of this bill, she said:

Victims of Violence is very pleased that the government has indicated it's interest and intention to act in a variety of criminal justice and public security subject areas on behalf of victims of crime. In particular, we are pleased that the victims of crime now have a federal Victims Bill of Rights that is codified in law which is a major step for victims in Canada. The Bill contains worthwhile steps to confirm the importance of victims receiving information and having their voices heard. We are also pleased to see that the Bill contains a number of recommendations that have been put forward by victims over the past number of years.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure to work with my colleague across the way at committee and I know how seriously he takes his work. I really appreciate his putting forward that question.

I need him to know that is why I am supporting the bill going to committee stage, because even though the bill is not enough the way it is right now, it is a step in the right direction. It is a piece of legislation that many are disappointed with, but others are saying that at least it is a little baby step and it is the beginning.

In that way, let us make sure that when we get to the committee stage, we strengthen it by putting real teeth in it and by also making sure that resources are there so that victims get the support they need. They do not just need words; they also need support, and that support is what helps to heal them and rehabilitate them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments that victims deserve more than just platitudes and statements.

We would like to see things that are far more tangible. In certain situations, for example, when I was chair of a justice committee, we tried to move into the area of restorative justice, whereby in certain situations victims can be a part of coming up with the dispositions of those individuals who caused the harm in whatever fashion it might have been.

In fact, there are many different things that government can be doing outside of legislation. The member made reference to a commitment, for example, to increase the number of police officers. It builds up an expectation. In Winnipeg, I know many police officers felt they were going to see an increase, and that never materialized.

I would argue that the reason back then—and I do not know if it has been put in place recently—was that no real negotiations took place between the province and the federal government over how that would be implemented. Yes, money was flagged for it, but it was never really acted upon.

Talk is cheap. Our constituents want to see more action, and the member might want to provide comment on the whole idea of action.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just as my colleague has said, there were all kinds of commitments made during the last election for additional policing.

It is not just my riding, but other ridings that have had problems with safety and crime are asking the same questions about what happened.

My colleagues across the way, including the minister, mentioned earlier that they brought in mandatory minimum sentencing. If we could really end crime through mandatory minimum sentencing, then the prisons in the U.S. would not be overcrowded. The U.S. would not be spending such a major part of its budget on prisons, and there would have been a decrease in crime. Research shows that the U.S. is not seeing that decrease in crime. It is now looking more towards the rehabilitative approach that we have had in the past, rather than a purely punitive approach.

When we are looking at action, it starts quite early. It starts with the kind of investment we make in preschool education, with the kind of investment we make in K-12, and it also starts, when our students get off the tracks, with the kind of resources we provide to help them get back on the right track. It also means providing support for those suffering from mental health issues. The provinces have been cutting those programs because of funding.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also support the bill. I take the same sort of view that my hon. colleague does: to support the bill, get it to second reading and hope for amendments.

I noted the member quoted from the first of the federal ombudsmen for victims of crime. I commend the current administration for creating that position.

However, the current federal ombudsman for victims of crime put out a statement on Bill C-32. I was familiar with the recommendations that went forward. That office had made 30 recommendations for what should be in a bill that spoke to the rights of victims of crime. Of the 30 recommendations put forward by that office, only four have been fully contained in this bill.

One I thought was particularly notable, and I hope we can get to it at committee for an amendment. I will not be a member of that committee, but I urge members to take note of it. It is that in order to benefit from any of the so-called rights that victims of crime will get under this bill, they need to know that they have to register themselves with the parole office or with the correctional service as a victim to get on the list to get the notification of such things as when the person who perpetrated the crime against them is being released and so on.

Surely we need to include in this bill very clear notification, clear communication to victims of how they get their rights and how they exercise those rights. That key piece is missing.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, there is much that is missing from this bill. That is why, when it gets to committee, I am sure there will be amendments galore to try to fix it.

My colleague just pointed out a reality that we face with a government that keeps moving closure and keeps shutting down debate. It refuses to listen to experts. An ombudsman appointed by the government makes 30 recommendations on what must be included in a bill, and the government rejects 26 of those items out of the 30 and cherry-picks the 4.

That actually adds to why I am so concerned about the inadequacies of this bill, and why we need to take our time to study it. However, as the government has already moved lengthy sittings and closure on all kinds of issues, I am not too hopeful that we will get to debate this in a meaningful way, to make some real changes and not be left with a sham.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta. Her speech was very eloquent, and we should really examine it closely because she raised many very interesting points. I would like to ask her a quick question.

This bill proposes to create a complaints mechanism for victims. An agency would deal with those complaints at either the federal or provincial level. However, there is no funding for this. The federal government is once again mandating the provinces to spend money.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that the federal government is always downloading costs onto the provinces. I would also like her to talk about the impact this will have on the services the provinces can provide.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very brief. This is another example of a government that cannot work with partner groups and cannot work with the opposition to address some very critical issues.

I would say that there has probably been very little consultation with the provinces. They will be surprised at this. They will be left with the costs and everything. I am worried about what that is going to mean. It is going to mean that nothing is going to happen.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley West.

Every so often, members of Parliament see a bill that says to them, “This is why I was elected to Parliament. This is why I came to Ottawa on behalf of my constituents”. For me, the victims bill of rights act is one of those bills.

Victims have been calling for these protections and these rights for years. For far too long, our justice system has focused on the rights of the accused and ignored the victims. Their loved ones have been murdered, they have been assaulted and harassed, and their homes have been broken into, yet the justice system often just treats them like just another witness.

I am very pleased to speak on this important bill, which would enshrine certain rights for victims of crime into federal legislation. In so doing, it is expected that the reforms would significantly improve the way our criminal justice system responds to victims, while at the same time recognizing the important role that they can and should play in the criminal justice system.

In the brief time available to me, I would like to focus on the general provisions and definitions and the primacy clause included in this bill.

The first thing to note is that bill proposes a definition of “victim” that recognizes the physical and emotional harms suffered as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence. It also recognizes that crime results in property damage and economic loss to victims. This definition would further inform the proposed changes to the definition of victim in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I support this broad definition, as it accurately reflects the realities of victims of crime.

This bill, and the rights contained therein, would apply to victims of all offences under the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, as well as to several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and criminal offences in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In unfortunate cases where the victim is deceased or incapable of exercising his or her rights, another person would be able to act on his or her behalf. For example, in cases where the victims are children or have suffered so much trauma that they are incapable of exercising their rights, someone such as a parent or a spouse would be able to speak for them and ensure that the victim's voice is not lost.

Every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard. The bill would put these rights on paper and entrench them within the law.

However, this bill would not allow for the accused or an offender, including those persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or those who are unfit to stand trial, to be considered a victim in the offence in question, or to act on behalf of a victim. This is an important safeguard against the potential misuse of this bill.

The rights proposed in this bill would apply to victims involved in the Canadian criminal justice system. This means that tourists, temporary and permanent residents, and Canadian citizens could invoke their rights while they are in Canada. The rights of permanent residents and citizens could also be invoked while they are abroad. For example, a retired couple who have been the victims of fraud in Canada but who live in Florida during the winter could rely upon the proposed rights to receive information about the status of any ongoing Canadian investigation.

This bill would make it clear that the victims of crime have rights at every stage of the criminal justice system, from the investigation of an offence right through to the conditional release process, including during proceedings before review boards for accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or those who are unfit to stand trial. This would ensure that victims have rights, even in cases that are unresolved or where no accused or offender has yet been identified, such as in the case of families of missing persons.

I had the opportunity to serve on the special committee for the study into violence against indigenous women, the report of which was just recently tabled in the House of Commons. In one of those meetings, we heard from the families of victims of some of these indigenous women who have disappeared. Many of these women, as we know from the RCMP report, have been murdered. The families told us that they need the rights that are enshrined in this victims bill of rights. They need to know what is happening at every step of the police investigation into the disappearance of their loved ones. This is something that they have not always experienced in the past, and these rights would now be enshrined in this law. That is one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this bill.

Even if some victims of crime choose not to interact with the criminal justice system and exercise their rights, this bill would ultimately be beneficial to all victims and all Canadians. This bill would increase victims' awareness of their rights and enhance awareness of victims' needs among criminal justice professionals and the general public through the online resources and training opportunities facilitated by the government. Right now, there is no document that victims can consult if they want to know all of their rights within the federal justice system.

This bill would ensure that victims' rights are applied in a reasonable manner and in a way that is not likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice or ministerial discretion; endanger the life or safety of any individual; or cause injury to international relations, national defence, or national security. As this bill makes clear, victims would be informed and involved at every stage of the criminal justice process. That is very important. I myself have been a victim of crime and I know that throughout the investigative and prosecutorial processes I had to learn about what was going on through the news media because I was not receiving that information directly from the justice system.

These rights would be implemented through mechanisms provided by law. Indeed, these technical changes would give life to the rights contained in the Canadian victims bill of rights in a manner that is consistent with the unique constitutional and operational realities of the criminal justice system. As we know, the criminal justice system is a shared responsibility, with the federal government having constitutional authority over the criminal law and criminal procedure, and the provinces being responsible for the administration of justice. Accordingly, many of the proposed amendments would be implemented through the actions of the provinces. This bill respects the constitutional division of powers. This government does not intend nor wish to encroach upon provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

This bill does not seek to impede efficiencies in the criminal justice system. Inefficiencies and undue delays in the system would not serve the best interests of the victims. For example, delays in the system could result in charges being dropped and proceedings being stayed. An accused person must be tried within a reasonable time and no victim of crime should ever be denied justice because of delays in the system.

This bill would also provide internal safeguards so that authorities could always act in the public interest when victims' rights are being exercised. Authorities must maintain the ability to protect both victims and the Canadian public at all times.

Thus, this bill would also provide transformational change for victims while upholding the rule of law and respecting principles such as police and prosecutorial discretion. For instance, it is a well-recognized constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to instigate, continue, or terminate prosecutions. This bill respects that independence, and at the same time grants victims a greater voice in the process.

Let me also elaborate on the primacy clause proposed in this bill, which signals that victims' rights are to be taken seriously and given meaningful effect by all in the criminal justice system. It proposes as a general rule that all federal legislation would be required to the extent possible to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Canadian victims bill of rights. In circumstances where there is clear and irreconcilable conflict between a federal law and the Canadian victims bill of rights, the provisions of this bill would prevail. Victims' rights would be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever conflicts arose between this bill and laws contained in other federal acts.

The Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act would be expressly exempt from the primacy clause because they are also quasi-constitutional. These acts protect the rights and interests of all Canadians, including victims of crime, and they also have a clear link to the fundamental rights and freedoms found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I firmly believe that this bill is the necessary catalyst for creating a culture of change in the criminal justice system so that the needs of victims of crime can be better met. Given the progressive and vital nature of this bill, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support it.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask the Minister of Public Safety a question.

In his speech, the minister gave us the impression that there is no budget allocated for this program. He even went farther by saying in response to a question that in general, the provinces have good services to help victims.

I think the lack of budget is problematic. The provinces have their own expenses and their own programs. Of course, it is a good step forward to create a federal program from a policy based on a new law. However, the fact that there is no budget is a real problem, and it will pose a major challenge for the provinces, which will have to add this to their list of responsibilities.

I would like to know whether the provinces were consulted.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you just pointed out, I am sure the hon. member knows I am not the Minister of Public Safety, but I thank her for the promotion, in any event.

She will probably know, if she read economic action plan 2014, that it commits to supporting the implementation of a Canadian victims bill of rights. She will remember that the victim surcharge was doubled. That goes to the provinces for the administration of justice, including supporting the victims bill of rights. I believe she and her colleagues voted against that, which is unfortunate.

In recent years, the federal government has created the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. It has created the federal victims strategy, providing more than $120 million for programs and services that help give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It has allocated more than $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres, since 2010, to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime. It has, as I mentioned earlier, doubled the victim surcharge, which provides funding for these services.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the member expand on his comments about victims who are children when he talked about an advocacy fund.

I do think it is important that we recognize that, yes, where we can improve upon legislation to protect our victims and provide rights, that is generally and principally a step in right direction.

However, having said that, I think we need to be more aggressive in terms of how we can, in a more tangible fashion, provide the resources that might be necessary; or as I said earlier this evening, are we really doing enough to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, thereby preventing victims from becoming victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned child youth advocacy centres in his question, and I am really pleased he did that, in terms of child services for child victims of crime.

One of the most important things our government has done is support the creation of these child youth advocacy centres. There is a very important one in Toronto called the Boost child and youth advocacy centre. I hope our government will be able to support one in my Region of Peel, which is the cities of Mississauga and Brampton. A plan is being worked on to prepare one there very soon, and I hope it will be supported by the Department of Justice in the future.

On April 3, Karyn Kennedy, executive director of the Boost centre in Toronto, said the following about the bill of rights:

Boost supports the work of the Federal Government in creating the Victims Bill of Rights. This legislation will give victims a much stronger voice and a greater presence in the criminal justice system.

She further said:

We have been part of several consultations on the bill over the past year and are pleased to see the progress made.

I think that statement indicates that those who provide victim services to children see this as a big step forward in the services they provide.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Mississauga—Erindale for his contribution this evening and for sharing his time with me.

I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. Today I will focus my remarks on the proposed remedies provisions of the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The Canadian victims bill of rights is aimed at ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect during the various stages of the criminal justice process and that their voices are, in fact, heard.

Criminal justice professionals play a crucial role in the delivery of an effective criminal justice system. They do their jobs very well, often under very difficult circumstances, including dealing with victims with compassion and respect, but it does happen—and this is what victims told us—that they can feel that their rights have been breached or that they have been treated inappropriately. The Canadian victims bill of rights would ensure that there is a way to right a wrong when it happens.

The Minister of Justice consulted with victims and other stakeholders across the country from April to October 2013. Significant input was received, including in terms of options for a complaint resolution process. The Canadian victims bill of rights proposes a complete resolution process that is based on the principle that the particular agency responsible for the breach should be the first to receive the complaint. Subsection 25(1) of the bill makes this very clear.

Section 25 would also require all federal institutions involved in the criminal justice process to have mechanisms in place to receive complaints, to make recommendations for addressing any violations of rights, and to inform victims of the results of a complaint. This would include, for example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the Correctional Service of Canada.

Similar mechanisms are also in place in agencies that are under provincial and municipal responsibility, such as the provincial crown prosecution services and municipal police forces.

This approach has many benefits. It would help foster the sort of remedial responses that victims have indicated would be meaningful to them. During consultations with stakeholders and victims groups, many suggested that in response to a breach of a victim's rights, the agency responsible should issue an apology directly to the victim for the misconduct. They also indicated that the agency responsible should fix the problem so that it does not happen again to another victim.

In other words, victims want remedies to include positive, responsive steps to change the culture or practices within an organization. They want remedies to be forward-looking and to address problems that have been detected. They want to spare other families from having to endure the same kind of mistreatment in the future.

Victims are best served by sharing their concerns directly with the agencies that are tasked with protecting them and by encouraging those agencies to see that every effort must be made to ensure that victims, as an integral part of the criminal justice process, are treated with the courtesy, compassion, and respect they deserve throughout every step of the process.

Apologies and improved practices are key elements that each criminal justice agency must consider directly as part of their responsibilities toward victims and toward Canadians more generally.

This approach would also have the benefit that criminal justice agencies would treat remedies for a breach of victims rights as part and parcel of their overarching obligations. It would also help keep costs manageable, as every such agency would already have in place a process for receiving complaints.

It is entirely possible that victims who made a complaint about the conduct of police, a prosecutor, or a correctional institution might not be satisfied with the response they received. Victims would, therefore, also be able to take their complaint to an authority that has jurisdiction over the agency that breached the right. Whether the agency is under federal or provincial authority, there are supervisory organizations that can take a fresh look at that complaint.

In the case of a breach by a federal agency, if a complaint is not resolved to the satisfaction of the victim, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime would assist victims with complaints and work informally with relevant federal agencies to address the breach and improve practices for dealing with victims of crime.

In regard to an allegation of infringement by a provincial or municipal agency, the bill respects the split constitutional jurisdiction and proposes that the applicable remedy is the remedy set out in the provincial law, policies, or practices. Provincially, remedial options may include ombudsmen for the province, specialized victims offices, or designated police oversight bodies, for instance.

The victims bill of rights is the result of a balanced approach. Under the bill, victims of crime would not have standing to make complaints about breaches of their rights in court within the context of criminal proceedings against the accused. It is important to ensure that criminal trials are not sidetracked to deal with government agencies that allegedly have infringed the rights of victims. The criminal trial process must stay focused on determining the guilt or innocence of the person accused of a crime. State mistreatment of crime victims must be appropriately dealt with in its own right through separate processes.

I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this bill. We have heard tonight from a number of members on all sides of the House who support the bill and intend to vote in its favour. It would give victims a strong voice in the criminal justice system through the creation of rights for victims of crime and a strong remedial scheme to address breaches of those rights.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who seems to be deeply committed to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I have a number of questions I would like to ask him about the bill, but I will keep it to one brief and specific question.

Could he give the House an explanation for the delay between the time the promise was made to draft a victims bill of rights and the time the bill was actually introduced? If memory serves, the promise was made in 2006 during the election when the Conservatives managed to take power. Why did they wait so long before introducing Bill C-32, which we are discussing today? What was the reason for that delay?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been committed to finding resolutions to crime and to fighting crime since we came to office in 2006. The Canadian victims bill of rights presents no different an approach to finding a resolution to issues that are important to Canadians. Clearly, we have been addressing crime and issues to reduce crime since we arrived in government. Many of those crime bills that we have been so aggressively supporting throughout that timeframe have, regrettably, been opposed by the opposition.

This particular legislation would bring a different focus toward addressing the needs of victims. This bill addresses the issues that need to be completed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not necessarily answer the question that was posed, and it was a legitimate question.

The Conservatives have talked for years about bringing in a victims bill of rights. They have made election platform issues of it. It was referenced as long ago as the 2006 election. I do not know if, in fact, that it was an election platform issue in 2006.

Could my colleague tell us to the best of his knowledge if it was an election platform issue for the Conservative Party in 2006? Could he provide some feedback as to why he believes it has taken this long to get the bill brought forward, if in fact that is the case?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer with regard to 2006 specifically. I did run in the election in 2006. Clearly, creating safer streets and communities for Canadians was integral in that campaign.

As far as the Canadian victims bill of rights goes, let us address some of the issues and what we have accomplished over the course of that time frame. We established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We created the federal victims strategy, with more than $120 million allocated since 2007 for programs and services to help victims and give them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. We allocated more than $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres. We introduced legislation to double the victims' surcharge and to make it mandatory. We eliminated the so-called faint hope clause.

Victims have been central and core to everything we have done since we have come into power. I clearly believe this bill brings that focus to fruition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

We have before us a bill that is supposed to expand victims' rights. It is a step in the right direction to improve the lot of victims. With all due respect, and contrary to what the member for Don Valley West just mentioned, the NDP believes in victims' rights. We always want victims to have real rights, not meaningless rights.

The problem with this bill is that some aspects are bogus, starting with the fact that it took a year to hold a consultation. Several recommendations were put forward during that year but, unfortunately, just four of them were included in the legislation.

The government wants to establish a new process so that victims can assert their rights, but they will have to go through a process created by the provinces. Once again, the government is going to ask the provinces to spend money on a federal bill. If this legislation is really going to create a victims bill of rights, resources should be allocated, but that is not provided in the bill before us.

The bill is supposed to expand victims' rights and the definition of “victim”. This is a good idea in itself. It deserves a debate in committee after second reading. This bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release. Once again, at first glance, this seems to be a very good idea. It must be examined in committee so that we can hear experts on this issue. I think most experts will fully agree on that provision.

The bill also seeks to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the court informs victims of any agreement reached between the accused and the prosecutor, once a guilty plea is accepted. I am looking forward to hearing experts on this aspect, because it deserves a great deal of attention. Legal experts will have a lot to say on this issue. I believe this bill warrants the attention of the House and of the experts. I hope some witnesses will have a lot to say about this.

The bill 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. This changes a fundamental aspect of our system and it also deserves a lot of attention. Until now, it was always presumed that a person did not have to testify against his or her spouse. I am looking forward to hearing the experts on this provision.

I am going to quote Michael Spratt, who said:

Bill C-32 also amends sections of the Canada Evidence Act dealing with spousal incompetence compellability. Historically the Crown could not compel (force) an accused's spouse to testify. This is no longer the case. Under bill C-32 no person is incompetent or uncompellable to testify for the prosecution because of marriage. The new legislation does not, however, remove spousal privilege - found in section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act.A spouse still cannot be forced to testify about spousal communications.

Here is the interesting point, “They can however be forced to testify about all other manner of issues--including issues that may impact on the sanctity of the spousal relationship”. As Mr. Spratt points out, “It is unclear what this has to do with victims rights”.

To continue the quote, it states:

It is interesting to pause to note that: It is also unclear why the government did not amend the wording of section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act. This section speaks of 'husband' and 'wife'...

I would like to come back to this. I am a bit disappointed and discouraged that our Canadian laws still make reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. I thought that was already resolved: a marriage can be between two men, two women or a man and a woman. Once again, we see that Canadians laws unfortunately have not been amended to reflect the new reality that has existed for many years.

I hope that the government will take this opportunity to amend the act to reflect the reality of the times. Society has evolved, and unfortunately, the House seems to have a very hard time evolving at the same time.

Let us get back to the bill. I look forward to hearing what the experts have to say about the fact that spouses will now be able to testify against each other. This could fundamentally change the relationship between married couples. This deserves to be studied.

Another provision in this bill would create a mechanism to enable victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments for a denial of any of their rights under the bill of rights. This could be at the provincial or federal level, but most rights fall under the jurisdiction of provincial courts.

If victims file complaints through a new mechanism, this will create a new bureaucracy, largely at the provincial level. Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill about funding for this bureaucracy. We have to assume that the province will once again have to find its own resources to pay for something imposed in a federal law.

It is wrong to think that the provinces have unlimited amounts of money to spend. The federal government is once again offloading a responsibility onto the provinces without providing any funding. That is unfortunate. We see this too often in this House, and we are seeing it in the bill we are debating tonight.

I hope that the government will examine the situation carefully and provide funding for the bill of rights it is proposing today. It does not mean much to create a bill of rights that does not include funding, especially for the less fortunate victims. These victims do not have the means to exercise their rights. An inaccessible right is an illusory right.

In a previous Parliament, this same government eliminated a program that gave victims recourse under the charter. That is very unfortunate, because once again, if a charter bestows rights that are inaccessible for financial reasons, those rights are completely illusory.

We in Canada believe in our charter as well as in the bill of rights being debated today, but the fact remains that no money means no rights. It is a well-known fact. When it comes to asserting their rights, underprivileged people need more support than privileged people.

This bill does not go far enough. I hope that expert witnesses will point that out in committee and suggest improvements to the bill.

One of the last points I would like to mention is that the bill will codify the right to make a restitution order. It will also “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”.

We see that ultimately the Governor in Council will get to decide what is a reasonable time. Although that is not unacceptable, there is some detail lacking. I hope the committee will clarify that issue.

I would also like to add that many people have publicly shared testimonials about this bill. I planned to discuss a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, which also raised a number of questions about the bill, but I will save that discussion for another time.

I hope that the committee will take into account the testimonials we have heard so far, as a way to hear from more citizens and experts. This bill deserves our consideration and support at second reading so that it can benefit from a more thorough study.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising one of the aspects of this victims bill of rights that is concerning to me and to others, and that is removing the spousal immunity from testimony. As he and others have noted, this could lead to women who are in abusive relationships being afraid to report to police that they have been victimized by an abusive partner for fear they will be forced into testimony with that partner. That is one aspect of the bill.

Another aspect that brings people into close contact with a potential abuser is that the bill does not require that victims use, for instance, at parole hearings, separate entrances and have an ability to be isolated from the accused.

In these two instances, it could actually re-traumatize the victim. In the case of removing spousal immunity, it could result in women choosing not to report crimes when they have been the victim in a marriage relationship.

I would like to hear any comments. I certainly hope we can get this amended in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very appropriate question. It is worrisome that we could be putting people at risk by changing an element that has been constant in the legal system in our country for many years. Those kinds of changes need to be addressed and need to be studied very carefully before they are put into place. I share the member's concerns. We need to address this issue at committee.

I look forward to expert testimony. A lot of women's rights groups are going to have some interesting things to say about that particular aspect.

Again, we need to discuss this bill further. The idea of this bill, in principle, is a good one; however, it seems to lack an awful lot of forethought. We need to develop these ideas further. As the member points out, quite rightly, we might be putting at risk the very victims we are trying to defend.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for raising some extremely important points about Bill C-32 in his speech.

I completely agree with him that it was about time that a bill was introduced and debated. For years the Conservative government promised a victims bill of rights.

In his speech, he mentioned the fact that no funding has been allocated for the Canadian victims bill of rights. I did some research on that. On the Prime Minister's website, there is mention of the right to restitution under the Canadian victims bill of rights:

The Government will provide dedicated funding to support the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights through existing resources as well as the allocation of new federal resources.

Unfortunately, the resources have not yet materialized.

What does my colleague think of the fact that the Prime Minister promised to make funds available from new and existing resources, but, once again, we have yet to see the money?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She has raised an interesting point.

The Conservatives have been promising for several years to bring forward such a bill. They have gotten a lot of mileage out of suggesting that there would be a bill to protect victims. They recently held bogus consultations. Quite frankly, I do not know if the Conservatives would be taken seriously by victims groups.

We are seeing the result in the House. Very few recommendations made during the consultations were included in the bill before us. One of the recommendations made mention of the fact that the mechanisms that will be created to help victims require funding. If no funding is provided, it is obvious that that the rights are window dressing and an illusion.

I hope that the government will think about the fact that it has promised for eight years to introduce a bill here in the House. I hope that they will keep all the promises they made in the past and create a Canadian victims bill of rights worthy of that name.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in tonight's debate on Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his eloquent speech. He has already highlighted many issues that are important to the NDP.

I feel compelled to repeat something he said right off the bat, namely that, in our opinion, support for victims is essential. It is a fundamental issue for the NDP. Some Conservative members have tried to suggest otherwise, simply because our vision of support for victims of crime in Canada is slightly different from their own.

It is important that we put the focus back where it belongs, namely victims' rights, period. That is the priority. We have been hearing about a Canadian victims bill of rights for ages now. In fact, it has been eight years. The Conservatives first mentioned the idea during the 2006 election campaign. We have been waiting since then. Indeed, many press conferences and photo ops have come and gone—methods to which we have become accustomed, as the Conservatives have relied on them in many other files, like the F-35s, to name but one.

We had to wait until today for them to introduce a bill which, at first glance, seems to respond to many of the needs expressed by victims. However, when we dig a bit deeper we can see that there are still some flaws in the bill that was introduced.

We believe that this is an important issue. That is why we will support the bill at second reading and ensure that it gets sent to committee so that we can make the necessary improvements to it.

Numerous experts, families of victims and victims themselves have publicly shared their opinion on the bill. There is a sense of satisfaction about the fact that progress is slowly being made. However, there are still some elements that need to be amended.

The bill, as it stands, would codify federal rights for victims of crime—namely, the right to information, protection, participation and restitution—and it would amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canada Evidence Act in order to incorporate those rights.

The key changes that are part of the bill before us today would expand the definition of “victim” to include physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss. It would also clarify the fact that a victim's spouse may testify if the victim is deceased or incapable of acting on their own behalf, as long as the couple has been in a conjugal relationship for more than a year.

The bill would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to view a photo of and certain information about the offender at the time of release and to obtain more details about the release date and conditions, and various other things like that.

At first glance, as I said earlier, it sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, with the Conservatives, the devil is often in the details. To be quite honest, I am very interested to see what will happen in committee. The government has not toned down its rhetoric: victims first, and tough on crime. We hear the words but, unfortunately, they are rarely followed by action.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence for a few months now. During today's meeting, we looked at sexual abuse within the Canadian Armed Forces. Where was the Minister of National Defence? He was not there. When the article in L'actualité was published, he issued a public statement in which he expressed his anger and surprise even though the government has known for years, at least since 1998, perhaps before, that sexual misconduct occurs within the Canadian Forces. Unfortunately, the victims of these acts are all too often women, who are already under-represented within the armed forces.

The current framework for filing a complaint and getting support is far from adequate. Even so, the government has shown no leadership on this issue. A Canadian victims bill of rights is all well and good, but it is not enough. These men and women, who are ready to risk their lives for Canada and to defend our cherished values around the world and who experience sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, are completely abandoned by the government.

It has washed its hands of the whole thing and is trying to blame the Canadian Armed Forces themselves. I think it is completely hypocritical of the government to say it will do anything to protect victims' rights, no matter who they are or where they are, then turn around and just ignore a situation that is resulting in an untold number of victims. Apparently five individuals in the Canadian Armed Forces become victims of sexual misconduct every day. That is a huge number, but the current government is not showing any leadership.

I appreciate the initiative to introduce a Canadian victims bill of rights, but the government needs to go beyond words and rhetoric. We need a really effective charter that will guarantee that people can exercise their due rights once they become victims of crime.

I hope that the government will go beyond photo ops and rhetoric. A little earlier, my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine mentioned a major problem with the bill, and that is the fact that no financial resources have been allocated in order to implement it. All of the responsibility for guaranteeing these rights is being put on the provinces and territories. Once again, the government is shirking its responsibilities. The Conservatives talk about a great principle that is important to them. That is all well and good, but it will be up to someone else to deal with that responsibility and take care of victims.

I hope that this major problem will be dealt with in committee. Earlier, my colleague from Alfred-Pellan asked the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine a question. She clearly indicated that the federal government had already promised funding, first to implement the Canadian victims bill of rights and then to compensate victims of crime. However, there is still no money being allocated. Were these just empty promises made by the government? I hope not.

The Conservatives are always saying that we need to be tough on crime and make life harder for offenders who are in prison. However, they are not prepared to take this initiative all the way. I find that disappointing.

The Canadian victims bill of rights responds to certain requests made by victims and victims groups. However, there is nothing in the bill of rights that allows for the creation of legal obligations for people working within the justice system. The bill contains a potential mechanism for filing complaints with federal departments, agencies and organizations that play a role in the justice system when victims' rights have been violated. However, once again, there is very little information about this mechanism. That is rather troubling. If the government is going to propose such measures, then it has to support them and make sure they have a tangible impact, which does not seem to be the case right now.

Despite the problems we have raised, it is important to the NDP to ensure that victims of crime across the country are guaranteed certain rights and that they have a more effective voice in the justice system, which is not currently the case.

I am under the impression that the Conservative government is trying to score political points at the expense of victims. I hope that the government will prove me wrong with the work that is done in committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her speech, which, as usual, came from the heart. I know that victims rights are extremely important to my colleague, as they are to all my NDP colleagues.

A number of questions remain unanswered when it comes to the Conservative government's intention to provide funding for the Canadian victims bill of rights. The lack of consultation with the provinces and territories is a recurring theme for the government across the way and we are seeing that again here, unfortunately, with Bill C-32.

I did a bit of research and found that the provinces already have some provisions, programs, and charters. For example, the Province of Ontario has had its own Victims Bill of Rights since 1995.

What does my colleague think of the Conservative government's lack of consultation? Is there overlap with the provinces and territories?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. I had the chance to sit with her a few times in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I know that she does extraordinary work in this committee and the issue before us here today is very important to her.

Indeed, this lack of consultation is a recurring theme with this government. The practical effect of the victims bill of rights as currently presented is simply to harmonize federal legislation with what already exists in many provinces and territories.

In fact, the government did not go to the provinces and territories to ask them how everything might be improved or to find out what they really need to protect and guarantee victims' rights. The Conservative government ignored all that. They are in the habit of introducing a bill to us as a done deal and then maybe consulting and listening afterward, but usually not. They did indeed do some consultations in person between April and October 2013, and online from May to September 2013.

However, did they sit down with the justice ministers and public safety ministers from the various provinces and territories? I highly doubt it and that is obvious in the bill before us.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, any discussion about victims and crime should also include the provinces. Justice and law enforcement are basically under provincial jurisdiction, aside from the RCMP. Therefore, it is essential that we consult the provinces about any legislation regarding justice and victims' rights.

Victims need to be protected. This issue is very important to me and to all New Democrats.

What approach does my colleague think the government should take in consulting with the provinces on legal matters and the protection of victims' rights?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for his excellent question.

It is very important for any good Canadian government to consult with the provinces and territories. We live in a federation. This is not a unitary government, and therefore we must consult the other levels of government before introducing a bill that could have a direct impact on their jurisdictions.

That is a basic notion of federalism that I did not think I would have to explain to the House at this time of night. Unfortunately, the government opposite could really benefit from this approach, since it always seems to skip that step.

The Conservatives introduced a bill but left out the provinces. They did not ask the provinces what resources they would need or what the bill should focus on. There were no consultations. A few experts were consulted, but the provinces and territories were ignored. That makes absolutely no sense.

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.

Victims Bill of Rights

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome.

I must first point out that I will be sharing my time on Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, with the member representing the good citizens of Hull—Aylmer.

I would like to mention that we will be supporting the bill at second reading stage because, as we have said a number of times and as we repeat every day, the NDP is a strong advocate for victims' rights. We will continue to support them and defend them in the House. I am certain that the government is also showing good faith in all of this with this long-overdue bill of rights.

I had heard about the bill of rights in the past. A number of groups in Sherbrooke had talked to me about it even before the bill was introduced. The Conservative government had been promising this Canadian victims bill of rights since 2006. Stakeholders and experts had already expressed a number of concerns.

My colleague from Pontiac mentioned a little earlier that the provinces also have an important role to play in this discussion. In fact, they are responsible for the administration of justice. They must be consulted as much as possible and their views must be considered in the process leading up to the drafting of such a bill. Perhaps that is why it took eight years. I hope not, because if it really were a Conservative priority, the bill would have been brought forward well before 2014 because they have been promising this bill of rights since 2006.

We have to admit that this bill of rights is nonetheless a step in the right direction because it will give victims of crime certain rights. They really should have these rights because, no matter the crime, it will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Regardless of the sentence handed out to the wrongdoer, victims of crime will remember the event, which will stay with them and affect them perhaps for the rest of their lives.

This bill focuses specifically on victims' rights in relation to the legal system and legal proceedings. That is good. It talks about broadening the definition of the word “victim”. It also talks about amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to see a photograph of the offender. It would also give victims a lot more information once the offender is released, as well as more information during parole hearings. Victims are given a lot of rights, and that is a very good thing because they deserve to have that information. The bill is generally positive despite the flaws I will talk about shortly.

It is important to give victims these rights within the legal process, but it is also important to support them for the rest of their lives when they experience problems because of these crimes. It is so important for the government to support these people who did not choose to be victims.

The government needs to do more. This bill of rights is a good thing, but it is not the solution to all of the problems. The government has to work even harder to support victims of crime, who have to live with that crime for the rest of their lives.

I cannot give a speech about victims of crime without talking about preventing crime too. Crime prevention is the best possible solution. The government has to do much more to prevent people from committing crimes.

The best way to help victims is to prevent them from becoming victims. I think we can all agree that one of the best ways to help them is to prevent crime. The Conservatives are much more about punishment, so they introduce new punitive measures. Those are necessary, because we will never completely eradicate crime. It is practically impossible. Still, the government should introduce measures to prevent crime in the first place. That is an important solution. That was a digression.

There are many worthwhile things as well as many flaws in this bill, as I mentioned earlier. Among those flaws is a lack of funding for this bill of rights. Promises and fine speeches abound. The minister sends out multiple press releases and gets a lot of political mileage, so to speak, from this bill. However, there still is no funding, despite promises from the Prime Minister himself, as my colleague from Alfred-Pellan pointed out. No one has seen that money yet. We hope it will be part of the next budget. There may even be supplementary estimates. Who knows? Only the government can say. We hope that the promised funding will show up eventually, so that the bill of rights can go beyond mere words and have some clout once it is passed by Parliament. This bill of rights must be more than well-meaning, empty promises. Victims want the rights set out in the bill of rights, and they must be able to exercise these rights.

Earlier, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that the provinces have many programs available. The entire problem cannot be shifted to the provinces, even though the Conservatives have a habit of doing just that. The government needs to shoulder its responsibilities as well and help victims directly.

Many people have commented on the Conservatives' bill. Not all of the comments were positive. Mr. Sullivan, the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, had nothing but good things to say about the bill.

He thinks it is a good bill. However, he feels that the biggest problem is that the Minister of Justice promised the bill would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that.

He is also unhappy about the fact that the government made promises about the charter but, in the end, nothing come of them.

He also stated that the charter is somewhat positive but that it basically just codifies what is already happening within the justice system. The practices are already in place, but now they will be codified. They are already being followed in different provinces. Mr. Sullivan added that all this really does is bring it in line with provincial laws.

The government promised something totally new but, ultimately, this looks a lot like what is already happening in the provinces. It is positive, but it is not what we were expecting. The government did not keep its promises. It has been talking about this since 2006.

Finally, it is here and let us just say that the more we learn about the bill, the more disappointed we get.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech from across the way. I find it very difficult, though, to reconcile what the member has said to this House in regard to the shouldering of responsibility. He said that the federal government is not shouldering its responsibility in helping the provinces, because the implementation is not paid for by the federal government.

When we looked at changing the victim surcharge, that member and his party voted against it and against giving more resources to the provinces. When the Minister of Finance in this House put forward a budget for 2014, that member voted against it, even though it said right in the budget that implementation costs for this particular piece of legislation would be covered by the federal government.

I ask that member to stand in his place and explain to the House how he can reconcile his statement, given his and his party's voting history. It makes no sense.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's very specific question. She just reaffirmed a point we have been making since I was elected in 2011. The government introduces omnibus bills, including budget implementation bills, and puts all sorts of things in the same basket.

Then we vote against one specific thing in the budget, when the government is asking us to vote on a group of legislative measures that affect many different things. If I were to vote on specific things that were not part of the omnibus bills, my vote might be quite different.

I think this is rather consistent with what I have been saying today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is in regard to the government's approach to dealing with legislation of this nature. In principle, it is positive and may be a step forward, but it should be recognized that the government needs to do more than just bring in legislation, proclaim the name, and then champion it as something that will resolve a wide variety of issues.

In fact, we need to be more proactive to prevent having victims in the first place and have more tangible resources provided to support victims, especially where victims endure quite a bit of mental duress, among other things.

I wonder if the member might pick up on the point that talk is great, but action is necessary to have the desired impact that Canadians would like to see.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question.

I did not have the chance to elaborate on that in my speech. Indeed, the government promised a bill for years and it was highly anticipated. Finally, the experts who analyzed the bill after it was introduced a few months ago said that it would not change much and it was not what was promised.

The bill is positive, but it does nothing to keep the promises that were made. Will it really help certain victims in their daily lives? There are experts who are not so sure. They think this is the government's way of being able to say that it kept its promise. However, this is not at all what people were expecting. The experts were disappointed. We have notes and comments indicating their disappointment.

The government likes to talk, but when the time comes for it to take meaningful action, its bills do not do enough. That is too bad. I hope this will change in committee. That is what the official opposition hopes. We do our job well. We hope that we will be able to propose amendments and improve the bill. We always know our stuff, and we work very hard to improve bills in committee. I will vote in favour of this bill at second reading.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about the Canadian victims bill of rights tonight. This is an important topic and we are very open to discussing it.

For once we can work together to try to make improvements and come up with a bill that will improve the lives of the Canadian public and the people affected.

I hope that the government will also be receptive in committee when we propose amendments to help improve this bill, so that we can be more proactive. I think that is important at this stage.

I am thinking of all the victims, including aboriginal women, and the people around them who have gone through very difficult times. I am thinking of women primarily, but also of homosexuals who have had to deal with prejudices at National Defence and the RCMP, where they were victims of all sorts of violence. They were not able to speak out about it or did not dare to. I hope that this proposed bill of rights will make a difference.

I must say that it is rather unfortunate to see that the government did not use this bill as an opportunity to respond more proactively to the recommendations made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. The ombudsman actively participated in the consultations and made recommendations. I could name a few. My colleagues also spoke about them. For instance, victims need to be treated fairly and respectfully and they need to receive personalized attention. They are entitled to speak and to have a standing in court. They have the right to information.

This bill should also be something that, as Canadians and as a government, we are proud to have introduced. We must also feel proud of it later. Victims and their families must be given full support, including financial support. They must be given help to move forward so that they feel better and more comfortable. It would be nice if they could say that, after everything they went through, at least they got the support they needed and that they were grateful to the government in power and Parliament for helping them to meet their objectives.

It is important for victims to be part of the system. They need to feel good, to feel protected, to feel safe, and to feel comfortable throughout the entire process.

Of course, the bill has some really worthwhile provisions that could help to broaden the definition of victims of crime and codify victims' right to information, protection, participation and compensation.

We are talking a lot about victims. However, I am also thinking of the families, friends and others who live with the victim. I would like to see all this support extended to victims' loved ones for the future, not just immediately following the crime, but afterward too.

We must ensure that we have a policy statement that serves a purpose. We cannot just have a nice bill that victims say does not really change anything for them.

Victims have a lot of expectations. Parliament did not address all of these issues and expectations in this bill of rights. These victims need support, not just nice words and press conferences.

I would like to talk about some of the testimony that was given by jurists and experts with regard to the bill.

I am thinking about William Trudell, chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. He said, “I don’t think this bill was necessary because basically what’s needed is education and properly funded victim services across the country.” We can do that if we propose amendments to the bill. The committee can respond to that. The bill would then meet the needs of victims and their families.

I would like to quickly read out what Andrew Swan, Manitoba's attorney general, had to say. Just before the bill was introduced, Manitoba's justice minister, Andrew Swan, told The National that there is benefit in Ottawa creating a national program, arm in arm with the provinces. “We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it.”

The Minister of Public Safety's speech did not give me the impression that this has been a collaborative effort. I asked one of his colleagues about that, and I was not told that they would work with the provinces or that they had worked with them. On the contrary, I was told that they were expecting that the provinces would take over the program. That is a dangerous approach. It is unfortunate. We have seen the same thing happen in other situations, where the government in power has passed laws before telling the provinces to deal with the changes. It is very unfortunate.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes was calling for the necessary resources to be allocated so that victims can be informed, heard and supported.

Today, I contacted the Outaouais Crime Victims Assistance Centre, an organization in my region funded by the Quebec government. What I learned was very interesting. In fact, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone in that organization for the work they do and the way they support victims. I learned that 17 centres across the province reach up to 100,000 victims. In the Outaouais alone, 5,000 victims have turned to the centre for help. The person I talked to told me that the centre's priority was to show victims consideration. This is the main goal, the priority. People who have been victims of a crime want to be treated and seen as full-fledged citizens as they go through that crisis.

Victims also want to feel safe. This is not to say that they always need someone by their side. Safety means psychological and physical safety. Across Quebec, one way to help victims is through video-link testimony. When victims do not want to meet their attacker, they can use alternate ways to testify.

She emphasized the fact that we must work together with the provinces. She says that what is currently happening is positive and that this is causing a change in mentality and a renewal. However, she would like this to go further. As I was saying earlier, she fears that the expectations will be quite high. She talked to me about some of her experiences with the victims. The papers talk about cases where victims report someone who was close to them 25 years after the fact. They have a hard time doing so and they are torn between reporting the offence and not wanting their abuser to go to jail. They would like these people to have some support.

She thinks it is extraordinary that the crown prosecutor from Quebec is taking over. We must consider all that. Again, I commend them on their excellent work. I would also like to mention that in Quebec there are victim support agencies. There is the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions sexuelles de l'Outaouais, which does excellent work in the Outaouais and elsewhere in Quebec, and the Centre Mechtilde, which also does good work.

We should be talking about prevention, assistance and subsidies. If we added what Quebec and the other provinces are doing, this would be extraordinary.

Then we would be able to talk about prevention and training.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for her excellent speech.

It is important to acknowledge the significant work that the associations are doing for victims' rights in our communities and in the various regions that we represent across Canada. It is extremely important to acknowledge all the hard work that these community agencies do from day to day, whether for human rights in mental health or for the rights of victims of criminal offences. I thank my colleague for doing that.

I work a lot with these associations as part of the work I do on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We often hear testimony concerning private members' bills or even government bills that deal with victims' rights. I work closely with the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, which had this to say about the victims bill of rights:

[C]ertain conditions must be met if this bill of rights is going to have real influence and not just make empty promises. It will be effective only if the mechanisms giving the victims recourse when their rights have been infringed upon are truly accessible. This is a major issue. Resources will have to be allocated so that victims can be informed, heard and supported in their dealings with federal...departments, agencies and ministries...

What does my colleague think about the fact that the Conservatives did not allocate any funding for the Canadian victims bill of rights?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which gets right to the heart of what people think and what they are saying about help for victims and about bills.

It is all well and good to pass bills but all of these crisis centres need money and resources. I spoke with the Centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions sexuelles or CALAS, who have been operating for years despite a lack of resources and support. Doing all of this work is taking a toll on them but they continue to do it and they continue to have someone available 24/7.

It is therefore a great pity that the government did not complete this bill by providing the means to fulfill its ambitions in order to help people and provide the funding necessary to put a stop to this type of violence and decrease the number of victims.

I encourage anyone who needs help to contact these organizations. I am going to post the addresses and telephone numbers on my Facebook page. I encourage the women and men who are listening to me today and who have something to say, to speak out. They will get the support they need.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very important question about one of the criticisms directed at this bill.

The government says that it wants to give victims more information and let them know about the parole hearings held for people who have committed crimes. The criticism was that this will not change anything about the fact that victims who want the information will be required to register and state explicitly that they want the information. The government could have chosen to make the process automatic, thereby dispensing with the need for victims to register in order to receive information.

Does my colleague think that this is something we could discuss further in order to ensure that victims can get the information without having to go through a process to request it?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I agree that it should be automatic. In fact, that suggestion came up during my discussion with the person in charge of victims' assistance centres in the Outaouais. They have the resources to follow up with victims and support them. I found that very interesting. There is never enough ongoing help for victims. They should not have to wait or keep going back to get information. I think that should be automatic.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I will use the term “victim” in my speech to mean the person against whom a crime has been directly committed as well as to designate those close to the victim who have also suffered and who often continue to suffer gravely as a result of the criminal act.

This bill is a step in the right direction. The Liberals support the bill.

Among other things, Bill C-32 would provide victims with an important right to information. For example, the bill would give victims the right to request information about a criminal case, including information about an offender's release date and a photo of the offender showing what he or she looks like after release. It would also allow victims to obtain a copy of a bail or probation order. This right to information is an important right from a victim's point of view.

There is general agreement that the bill does not go far enough. As a case in point, Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, has said, “...the bill fails to fully address the breadth and depth of victims' needs and concerns”.

If I may digress slightly from the content of the bill, I would like to say that victims' rights should not be used as a political wedge. I find there has been a regrettable tendency by the government to use a crime and punishment agenda as a partisan wedge, a way of separating the good guys who care from the others who purportedly do not, all for the purpose of political gain. The issue of victims' rights should not be transformed into a competition about which political party is more compassionate toward victims. I do not believe anyone in this House lacks compassion for victims. Some of us have likely been victims of crimes ourselves, from victims of small theft to more serious crimes that may have involved varying degrees of physical assault and harm, or we know people, loved ones, neighbours, or friends, who have been victims.

No one is interested in coddling criminals. In matters of law, however, the Liberals want to ensure that the key principles we as a society value and have fought hard to establish are respected, not only because those principles, like the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the need to respect charter rights in investigations and sentencing, have proved to be immensely useful in avoiding miscarriages of justice but also because to ignore those principles means threatening the very goal of upholding an effective justice system that protects society and punishes those who have transgressed against others.

Laws that do not respect constitutional principles eventually are invalidated by the courts. This leaves a dangerous void that is of no use to anyone.

The interests of victims have been an integral part of human justice from the earliest times. I know the government often likes to say that the justice system ignores victims and that victims are not considered in any way, shape, or form in the justice system. They kind of impugn the justice system, which I think is an unhealthy attitude. That seems to be the impression that is often created when one listens to pronouncements from the government. However, the idea of restitution for victims of crime is an age-old concept. The Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon, the old Roman laws of the Twelve Tables, and the Old Testament all codified concepts of restitution to compensate those wronged by lawbreakers.

In more modern times, two parallel systems have evolved, a criminal court system and a civil court system, as a way of simultaneously ensuring that defendants have a fair trial that reaches a truthful conclusion about guilt or innocence and that victims are properly compensated for the wrong that has been caused them.

The criminal court process is centred on the accused, on attempting to prove a person's guilt on the one hand and ensuring that the guilt has not been wrongly attributed on the other. The victim has had an increasing role in the criminal justice process but is admittedly not the centre of it.

However, the victim is very much at the centre of the civil proceedings process when he or she seeks damages for the harm that he or she has suffered. The main difference between the two systems, of course, is that the burden of proof is higher in criminal court. It is thus possible for someone to be acquitted in criminal court but to be found guilty in a civil case and consequently be forced to pay damages to the victim even though criminal guilt was not found.

What remains to be seen in reference to the victims bill of rights is whether it makes either court process any more responsive to the needs of victims in any real way or alternatively whether it merely tinkers with one or both. Essentially, what we are looking at is more in the nature of a placebo bill.

The justice minister says he is putting victims at the heart of the justice system, but is he really? Again, the current victims rights ombudsman thinks not, while the former victims rights ombudsman gave the bill a D grade when it was released. Or has the minister merely raised victims' expectations to a level that will lead to disappointment and frustration? According to Dr. Lori Triano-Antidormi, a psychologist who works with victims and their families and a victim herself who lost a loved one to a terrible crime, the government is creating false hopes.

Earlier in this debate, my esteemed colleague from Mount Royal outlined steps Liberals have taken to help victims. For example, the Martin government facilitated the testimony of child victims and other vulnerable witnesses by providing for the more widespread use of testimonial aids and support persons. That government also enhanced the national DNA databank by authorizing judges to order DNA samples from those convicted of a number of serious crimes.

A key concern for victims of crime surrounds plea bargains. I am sure everyone here is aware of that. Many victims are deeply frustrated when a plea bargain allows an accused who has done great harm to plead guilty to a lesser charge. In one case I read about, a plea bargain was arranged for someone who had killed an individual's son. However, the charge was reduced from second degree murder to manslaughter, resulting in a lesser sentence. The mother of the victim says she could not abide by the plea bargain because it meant that the man who killed her son would not truly be considered a murderer in the eyes of the community. He would in effect be viewed as someone who got caught up in some unfortunate chaotic situation and killed without intent to do so. When she was told of the plea bargain, the mother of the victim said:

I want you to let him go then. He's a murderer. Let the murderer go. Don't charge him with manslaughter because his whole life is going to be, “Oh, you poor guy, you were put in a position where you had to take a man's life.” I would rather him be out walking the street than put in jail for manslaughter.

This quote shows the extent of this woman's anger and bitterness. What added to the bitterness, the insult to injury, was the fact that the judge was never told of her opposition to the plea bargain. If he had, she may have found some small but transformative comfort in the fact that she had had her say.

A different case illustrates how giving victims the opportunity to express themselves over a plea bargain can help them in the difficult healing process, even if at the end of the day they do not succeed in changing a judge's ultimate decision.

In a case in Manitoba, the fiancée of a man who had been stomped to death by a group of teenagers at an outdoor festival was given the opportunity to express her opposition to the plea bargain. This had a profound positive long-term impact on the woman's healing process. The fiancée was obviously shattered by the judge's decision to accept the plea bargain, but she had been able to express her devastating disappointment to the prosecutor who communicated it to the judge.

To quote the judge:

The Crown said very honestly, 'The victim is not happy; she would wish you not go along with it,'....

When court was over, I walked over to her—I was in my robes—and we shared a tear together. About two months later, I got a letter.... It said that even though she...still did not agree with it, she said...what had happened in court had changed her life around. She had gone back to school and was now helping...victims, and wanted to thank me.

We obviously cannot give victims a veto over plea bargains or other decisions in criminal court cases. However, this bill would not even allow victims to have a say. It would merely give them the right to be informed of a plea bargain, and then only if they ask.

In contrast, the U.S. Crime Victims' Rights Act gives victims the right to address every public proceeding, including those relating to pleas. It gives victims standing in court, allowing them to hire lawyers to represent them. According to one expert, victims in the U.S. express greater satisfaction with the justice system when they feel they have been heard, something borne out by the Manitoba example I just referenced.

Bill C-32 also addresses, or attempts to address, the matter of restitution. However, again, the advertised message from the government does not quite match the facts. The bill would allow victims to ask the courts to consider imposing a restitution order against the offender, where financial losses are easy to calculate. The bill would leave it to victims to enforce restitution orders against wrongdoers.

In any event, what we know is that often, when restitution is demanded and granted, the offender is not in a position to pay. No doubt that creates a certain level of frustration and disappointment in the system on behalf of the victims.

The bill is a step in the right direction. One has to wonder if it could not have been a bit bolder in terms of helping victims. I am sure there will be some very good and interesting discussion around issues such as those I have raised, when the bill goes to committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his speech.

We have long been part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security together, where we have studied many private members' bills or other bills about victims' rights. Ms. O'Sullivan, the ombudsman for victims, often came to testify and we had the opportunity to ask her many questions.

In fact, my question is about the services currently being offered to victims. The NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading so that the Canadian victims bill of rights, proposed by the government opposite, can be studied in committee.

I, too, am worried about victims' rights. Sue O'Sullivan, like many other witnesses who came to talk to us about victims' rights, spoke about the importance of prevention so as to avoid creating more victims in Canada.

Could my colleague talk some more about how important prevention is and how it should be a key element in the Canadian victims bill of rights?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in reading some of Ms. O'Sullivan's material, I learned that she had made 30 recommendations to the government and that only half of them were accepted.

With respect to prevention, I am not sure I really understand what aspect of prevention this is about. Is it about society in general? I think that is what my colleague was referring to. I strongly believe in prevention, particularly when it comes to helping youth.

When a young person gets help and ends up not embarking on a life of crime, that does not make headlines. Headlines are for people who commit crimes. Prevention saves a lot of lives, and there are plenty of examples of that. Unfortunately, we cannot talk about it very much tonight, but I really believe in it.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his well-thought-out speech. I was really pleased to see that the Liberals support the need for this victims bill of rights and its underlying principles, though I am a bit puzzled as to why they did not take any action on this while they were in government.

Does the member agree that the victims bill of rights should have been accompanied by the funding necessary to provide for implementation of the complaints mechanism it provides and also funding to provide actual support for the victims?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member's first point, I am sure she understands that society evolves, ideas evolve, and steps are taken in a progressive way over time. We did not have a victims bill of rights 100 years ago either. Things take time to evolve.

As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals did bring in a number of important measures to help victims. For example, the Martin government took measures to facilitate the testimony of child victims and other vulnerable witnesses by providing for the more widespread use of testimonial aids and support persons.

On the question of funding, I hope that the government will bring in more funding. I understand that the budget has to follow the passage of the legislation, but I am not confident that the Conservatives will bring in funding. It seems to have become a habit of the current government to create wonderful gestures but not back them up with the resources required for those gestures to become meaningful. When it comes, for example, to the complaints process, the Conservatives have been very vague. If victims find that their rights are not being respected, we are not absolutely certain what they can do about it. This could be problematic down the road.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes there is nothing more slippery than a Liberal. In this case, they are trying to defend their record of years of inaction on victims' rights. We have Liberals who did absolutely nothing on victims' rights for years, and now we have Conservatives who are basically doing something that is called tokenism.

The thing is that they cannot address victims' rights if they do not address funding programs and do not address trying to deal with prevention. How difficult is it to wrap their heads around the fact that they have to invest in prevention and invest in programs that allow victims to have a voice? The current government is not doing this, and the past Liberal governments did not do it.

I do not understand how my colleague can try to defend the Liberals' record by trying to squeeze out in the middle. I have tremendous respect for my Liberal colleague, just not for his government in the past. I would like to hear whether he can defend the Liberal record on victims' rights.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague as well, but I must tell him that I have been here for almost 10 years now, and I only started hearing the NDP talk about victims' rights in the last year or so.

He is right that funding is important. Codified rights are important as well. When the Liberals brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they did not bring in a Charter of Rights and Freedoms budget at the same time, but those rights matter.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say and a lot of questions for the Liberals. However, I will stick to the facts and set the record straight.

The NDP has always supported victims' rights, and I think that is important to point out. I do not think that anyone in the House is against victims' rights. I think the problem is in how it is all implemented. The problem is in choosing words carefully, ensuring fundamental rights are taken into account, having respect for the dignity of these people and making sure that we keep our promises, like the one made by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister of Canada's website talks about the right to restitution and promises funding. We are talking about funding directly for the Canadian victims bill of rights. In light of the Prime Minister's promise, what does my colleague think about the fact that there is no mention of funding or an envelope for this bill of rights?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has still not committed to providing the financial means needed to make this bill effective. I agree with the member.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

I have the honour of adding my voice to those of my many colleagues today with regard to Bill C-32, introduced by the government opposite, to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights.

As far as this Canadian victims bill of rights is concerned, I would like to mention that the NDP has always supported victims rights. We want to support victims of crime in a tangible way and we must ensure that this charter will not be just a statement in principle that will never be implemented. The NDP sincerely believes that victims should have access to support and assistance programs throughout the legal process.

I mentioned at the start that we will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, on this side of the House, we are not prepared to give the Conservatives a blank cheque. The NDP members have promised to thoroughly study this Canadian victims bill of rights. We want to carefully study it to ensure that it brings about real improvements for victims who have been calling for this bill of rights for many years. We want to give careful consideration to every clause of this bill and we will consult experts about every element of this bill.

I must also mention the incredible work done in committee by my colleagues from Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île, as well as their serious approach to studying Bill C-32 and many other bills brought before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There are a number of points that I would like to address in the rest of my speech, including the limitations of the charter and some quotes from many victims advocacy groups in Canada. I will come back to that later.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have about eight minutes left to conclude her remarks.

It being 12 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House stands adjourned until later this day, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 27 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 Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my friends across the way what took so long. I ran in the 2006 election and debated candidates who talked about victims' rights. I ran in 2008 and debated other candidates who talked about victims' rights. Now it is finally before the House. This will come as a great shock, but the New Democrats will support sending the bill to committee. We believe that if members want to listen to us and work with us, we will find a way to make the bill even better.

We can actually work together if we try, if all sides want to work together on such a bill, because it is an important bill. If we think about it, it outlines federal rights for victims of crime to be informed, to be protected, to participate, and to receive compensation. I understand there is not much said in the bill about how much compensation the government will provide.

Another aspect of the bill that concerns us, and we may be able to work that out in committee, is that it does not establish any legal obligations for those working in the criminal justice system to implement any of the rights that are aforementioned in the bill, which is very troubling.

The Conservatives say that they truly want to make victims a priority. I am in my ninth year here, and I hear this regularly from the other side. We will take them at their word. Instead of photo ops and all the announcements about what they will do, let us get down to business, let us get to work and do it.

The NDP has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims, victims groups and experts in the field in order to determine how we can best assist the people who are the victims. Members will hear me say many times in this speech that we should work together on this and get this done. Instead of the push and shove that occurs in this place so often, when we talk about victims' rights, we should all agree. Hopefully, we will find a way to get through this together.

With the Conservatives, the devil is always in the details. Therefore, until it goes to committee and there is a full discussion, we will reserve our judgment on the bill. Hopefully, the committee will hear experts and victims. Those are the people who have lived these situations.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is an active participant in Justice Canada's consultations for victims. The suggestion was that we had to have a conclusive and applicable statement, integrated, accessible and simple resources and services that would establish baseline standards across the country. After all, this is the federal Government of Canada and equality before the law across our country is very important. There has to be an inclusion of the definition of “victim”, encompassing all persons who have suffered from crimes committed in Canada, fair, respectful and adaptive rights, something to which we should all relate. Victims should have a voice, the ability to take action, the right to be informed, and, as I said a few moments ago, financial support and protections, psychological support mechanisms, and we should limit the ability for offenders to benefit from their crimes or to reoffend.

At first glance, the bill responds to some of those requests by widening the definition of “victims of crime”, by codifying rights to be protected, to participate and to receive compensation. However, the bill does not designate legal obligations on other stakeholders in the judicial system. It simply provides access to a vague mechanism to file complaints with various federal departments, agencies and organizations that have a role to play in the justice system when victims have their rights infringed.

For example, complaints directed at provincial and territorial organizations, including the police, the crown and victims' rights organizations, will be processed directly under the appropriate provincial or territorial laws. No specific funds have yet been attributed to the implementation of these mechanisms for examining complaints or to help out the provinces.

Are we creating some kind of two-tier system where the federal government will pay for some of it and the province will have to pay for some of it? This is an example of the kinds of questions we would like to see answered at committee. Maybe we need to have some amendments made to the bill to make it better. Only time will tell.

The NDP very clearly wants victims to have access to the services and supports they deem they need. That would require investment and partnership with the provinces, not just press conferences and some of the hot air we have heard for the last eight years. We recognize that for many victims, having assurances that they can participate in sentencing and parole hearings and being informed of the status of the prosecution are very important steps. That said, we want the government to provide real support and processes that will work, not just measures that it thinks will score political points.

We are looking at the details of the bill very closely. I want to reach across the aisle one more time and say to the government that we are looking at these details and want to work with it on this very important bill.

I have a story I want to tell. Lori Triano-Antidormi is the mother of a murdered child. That child was murdered two blocks from my home. The child was a couple of years old. The daycare worker took the child out for a walk and a woman, who all of us in the community knew was troubled, decided that day that the child contained the soul of her child. She killed the child to release her child to her once again. Obviously, that is a terribly sad story.

However, I want to talk about the strength of this mother. She said, “Not everyone believes the bill will be effective”. She thinks the bill will create false hope for victims. She is not only a victim of a crime, but is now a psychologist, 20-odd years later, so she treats others.

She also said:

My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system...She says that, right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. “The crown has the final say.” Government change would 'only fuel vengeance.

That is quite a statement for a mother who has lost a child, to have the depth of personality to say that. I have had the good fortune of meeting her.

If the government were to make that change, she is sure it would fuel vengeance in the victim, which from a psychological perspective, her trade being psychology. It does not help the healing and recovery. This is one of the reasons it is important for us to listen to victims of crime, because not all victims of crime are seeking vengeance. They are seeking a better way of dealing with crime in our communities so it does not happen in the first place.

There is another fairly well-known victim. Sheldon Kennedy is a name that has been spoken in this place before. Several victims' advocates were on hand for an announcement, including Sheldon Kennedy, who was sexually abused by his minor league coach. His words were:

I’m not naive to think that we’re going to flip a switch and everything’s going to be better...But being able to have this announcement...is going to start the process of trying to be better at the way we handle victims, not only through the court process, but really understanding the damage that happens to victims.

It is not about what we do with a person in jail; it is what we do to prevent people being victimized in the first place. Therefore, when we are at committee, when we are looking at the bill and talking about the rights of our citizens, we have to take into account how as a society, how as a government, we are going to put the resources into place to prevent these terrible crimes where people, children, are victimized so many times.

As a person who at one point in my life was assaulted by an individual, I know what it feels like to be a victim. It is not pleasant. It is more important that we understand in advance and find those places in society to make the difference so we will not have victims who pay prices they should not have to pay.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased to be able to ask my hon. colleague a question. His speech moved me because he expressed something very important to me, as a member of Parliament, namely the opportunity or this hope to work together. I commend that aspect of his speech.

He also talked about the fact that it is better to prevent than to cure. He also talked about how not to further victimize the victims and how to not have victims.

Can my colleague elaborate on that? Also, how could we improve this bill? I know that he already alluded to that. However, I would like him to expand on that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a caring society, part of our role is to say to victims that we will take care of them. The other part of that equation, the other half, is to prevent having victims in the first place. There is that balancing act.

I am optimistic about working with the government at committee on something that is this significant, this important, to everyday Canadians. Have members thought about how significant this really is and how important it is for us to come together to find a way to make this the best possible bill?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague across the way for his very heartfelt, insightful speech. Obviously the member of Parliament has strong empathy for victims, possibly because of the experiences he has had.

That said, could the member outline one or two things he thinks are very important to add to the bill? I think the bill is very strong. It needs to have members on all sides of the House put their ideas forward as well.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for my passion is that my sister was strangled to death when I was two years old. Our family was a victim of a circumstance. This was in 1949. Times were different. Police officers have come so very far from then, but even at that time, the RCMP officers involved did a very good job dealing with our family.

However, again, it is to come to that place of understanding of what motivates and creates these situations and to pre-empt them from ever happening in the first place. In our family's case, it was the mental illness of a family member, but in many cases, it is drug driven or other aspects. There are so many aspects of society we can reach out and touch if we want to do it. The committee is a place where this specific bill can be worked on so that we can accomplish that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very moving and affecting speech. The kinds of issues we are talking about here, and the reasons we want to be able to provide rights to victims that are accessible, are on our minds, but of course, we would all rather that the victimization had never taken place at all, particularly in the heart-wrenching story the hon. member shared with us.

I want to ask if he has had a chance to look at the recommendations that have come from the federal ombudsman for victims' rights. There were very few of them that made their way into the bill, and I am wondering if there are any specific ones. One that comes to mind for me is the idea that because there is so much going on that is emotionally wrenching at the time of victimization, there should be a standard printed card. It is a system used in other jurisdictions, I believe in California. It sets out for the victims where to go for help and how one identifies oneself as someone who would continuously get notifications in the train of the correctional process, and so on. I would ask my hon. colleague if he has any thoughts about the recommendations of the federal ombudsman for victims' rights.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is spoken of very often is giving victims a voice, but the other side is financial and psychological support.

For people who have been victims of these types of crimes, particularly where someone's life is lost, or a family member's, their world is destroyed in front of them, and they need all the help they can get. Their community helps, but the government having in place guidance, and having it clearly available to people, is very important.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights.

This historic bill marks the culmination of the government's effort to finally give victims the voice and protection they deserve in Canada's criminal justice system.

I would like to pay particular attention in my speech to the rights and amendments relating to restitution that are designed to address the concerns expressed by many victims regarding the financial burden of crime. I will also discuss the amendment related to the victim surcharge.

We know that victims pay a disproportionate percentage of all costs related to crime. In 2008, a Justice Canada study found that victims pay 83% of the cost of all crime. A more recent Justice Canada study, published in 2013, found that victims also pay 83% of the cost of violent crime.

These findings are shocking. The rights proposed in this bill aim to correct this imbalance and to relieve the victims of some of the financial burden of crime.

On October 30, 2012, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made the following statement about the impact of crime on victims:

These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings.We also hear from victims about their not being able to afford counselling sessions...

Therefore, members will understand that it is fair and logical for criminals to make a contribution and to pay restitution to the victim for the offences committed. Naturally, the provinces provide victim services, but why should honest taxpayers be the only ones to pay?

The Canadian victims bill of rights proposes to clearly indicate that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and has the right to enforce the order as a civil judgment where not paid.

What is the purpose of a restitution order? The Criminal Code states that the purposes and principles of sentencing are to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

Restitution orders, which help cover the victims' monetary losses due to, for example, bodily and psychological harm or damage to property caused by crime, follow these principles.

Restitution has been recognized in modern countries for a long time. In the United Kingdom, the right of a victim's family to compensation in any case of wrongful death was reinstated in legislation in 1946. In the United States, restitution re-emerged in the early 1900s, when new sentencing laws allowed the courts to impose alternatives to incarceration.

In Canada, since its inception in 1892, the Criminal Code has permitted a sentencing court to order compensation for property lost as a result of the commission of an offence. The Canadian provisions governing compensation were mostly unchanged until amendments in 1996 repealed the compensation provisions, replacing them with restitution order provisions. The terminology was changed to reflect that “restitution” refers to payments the offender should make, while “compensation” generally refers to payments from the state.

The amendments proposed in the victims bill of rights would be important for promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and for their acknowledging the harm done to victims. Right now, judges do not have to consider the possibility of a restitution order. The victims are forgotten, because this provision of the Criminal Code is very rarely used. This means that the court ignores the suffering victims often face.

To ensure that the existing legislative framework properly supports these rights, the bill would make a number of amendments to the restitution regime in the Criminal Code.

The current regime in the Criminal Code allows courts to order restitution orders for loss, destruction, or damage to property as well as financial damages resulting from the commission of an offence, such as the loss of income, expenses associated with moving out of a household shared with an offender, or costs associated with identity theft. The amount sought in a restitution order must be readily ascertainable, which means that the amount of the loss is easy to calculate and is not in great dispute.

If the offender fails to pay the restitution as ordered, the Criminal Code allows the victim to whom restitution is owed to file the order in civil court and to have it enforced as a civil judgment. The government believes that restitution orders can be very useful sanctions in achieving the sentencing objectives of acknowledgement and reparation for the harm done to victims.

For some, restitution orders represent a way for offenders to make amends and contribute to society. It can also be a way of reconciling with the victim.

However, there is evidence to suggest that the needs of victims of crime are not being met through the current restitution regime. For example, Statistics Canada reported in 2010-11 that restitution orders form part of 82% of the sentences for crimes against property but are rarely imposed in relation to crimes against a person, only 10%.

In order to ensure that restitution rights stated in the Canadian victims bill of rights are meaningfully realized, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to direct that the judge shall consider ordering restitution as part of an appropriate sentence in all cases. Where the court decided not to order restitution, the bill would require the court to state on the record the reasons for its decision.

For the victims, this is a great improvement because the court will have to ensure that it considers every situation and thus every case that comes before it.

However, before deciding to order the offender to pay the restitution or not, the court would have an obligation to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps had been taken to provide the victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they were seeking restitution for losses or damages.

This is a great improvement because victims will have the opportunity to determine whether they are going to seek damages. They will have the right to be heard and to tell the court about the harm done. In that way, we will give victims one more voice in the justice system. For a victim, being able to obtain a restitution order is another step in the healing process and towards a more normal life.

Let us remember the victims, who pay out of their own pockets for such atrocious expenses as the cleaning of the crime scene, or property destroyed by a thief.

The proposed amendments would also provide victims with an optional form in the Criminal Code to assist them in calculating and describing their readily ascertainable losses. The courts would be allowed to accept this information in other formats, as approved by the court.

A court of law could, on its own initiative or at the prosecutor's request, adjourn the proceedings to give victims a chance either to indicate whether they are seeking restitution or to determine the loss or damage, as long as the adjournment does not hinder the proper administration of justice.

I can summarize in one word what will be gained from updating the restitution scheme: dignity. With this change, the victims' human dignity will be fully recognized. The scheme will more effectively recognize the harm done to victims and will help provide solutions.

One of the fundamental objectives of this bill is to give victims the voice they deserve in the criminal justice system. In the context of restitution, this would be achieved by permitting victims to speak to their readily ascertainable losses in a victim impact statement that is to be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender.

This bill also recognizes that the offender's financial means or inability to pay the restitution order must not by itself prevent a court from ordering a restitution order. This represents a codification of decisions of appellate courts and of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that the means of the offender must be considered along with other factors in determining the totality of the sentence.

The necessity for victims to receive reparation for their losses and damages was the foundation of the proposed reforms regarding the payment of restitution orders.

The proposed amendments would permit the court to either order that the full amount of the restitution order be paid on the day of sentencing or in a specified number of days following sentencing or in accordance with a payment schedule the court determined to be reasonable in the circumstances.

In addition to this approach, the court would provide that in cases of multiple victims who seek restitution, the court would specify the amount payable to each individual, and where applicable, the order of priority in which victims were to be paid. The offender's failure to pay restitution by the day specified in the order or the failure to make a periodic payment required under the order would allow the victim or victims to enter any amount that remains to be paid as a civil judgment in any court of Canada.

I believe that a carefully tailored restitution regime in criminal law would effectively ensure that offenders acknowledge the harm done, provide victims with effective financial reparations, and avoid lengthy civil proceedings.

Another important element of the bill is the proposed amendment relating to the victim surcharge. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on convicted offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected and retained by the provincial and territorial governments and is used to help fund the most important programs and services for victims in the province or territory where the crime occurred.

This money does not go directly to the victim. It is placed in a special fund in the province or territory. The fund, sometimes called a victim assistance fund, is used to provide services and assistance to victims of crime, such as information on the criminal justice system and court processes, referrals to counselling, court support for vulnerable persons, assistance in preparing victim impact statements, and compensation programs.

Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, came into force October 24, 2013. It amended the victim surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code to double the amount an offender must pay when sentenced and ensured that the surcharge is applied in all cases. Bill C-37 came into effect, and it has been reported that some courts are providing exceedingly long periods of time to pay the surcharge, some up to 60 years.

This bill proposes to clarify that courts must require offenders to pay the victim surcharge within the time established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province in which the surcharge is imposed. If no time has been established, the surcharge would be payable within a reasonable time after its imposition.

Judges will therefore have some flexibility to impose victim surcharges, which will have to be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

“Reasonable time” has been interpreted by the courts as a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the case and cannot be decided in the abstract. Reasonable time must allow the debtor to meet the demand. The criteria of “reasonable” would still preserve a certain level of judicial discretion in describing the timing of the payment of the surcharge, but would not allow the debt to extend into an absurd or unreasonable period. This discretion would still allow the judge to take into account the offender's financial and other relevant circumstances in establishing a reasonable time limit for the payment. This approach recognizes the fact that the test of reasonable is used throughout the Criminal Code and, although not defined, is well understood, interpreted, and applied by the courts.

By virtue of subsection 734.7(1) of the Criminal Code, courts continue to have discretion not to commit for imprisonment a person who by reason of poverty cannot pay a fine, even after a reasonable time has been allotted.

I wish to reiterate that the proposed amendments relating to restitution and to surcharges in this particular bill are very important in addressing the concerns expressed by many victims and in meeting the objective to give victims the voice and protection they deserve in the Canadian criminal justice system. I urge all members to join me in supporting the Canadian victims bill of rights.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Bill C-32 needs to be amended, as it is too weak and fails to address many aspects of the problem. The main problem, in her view, is that the proposed charter gives victims rights but provides little in the way of enforcement.

Does the member think, like the ombudsman, that victims should be able to consult a lawyer without delay, so that they can assert their rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

The committee will be hearing many witnesses, of course. The ombudsman will surely take part in these discussions. We will listen to each and every recommendation that could help improve the bill and make it more effective.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the justice committee for his speech. I realize the speech focused primarily on the provisions of the bill that deal with restitution and surcharges, but I want to ask him about clause 24 of the bill, which deals with aboriginal justice.

My colleague would know full well that aboriginal people are grossly overrepresented in the prisons of our country, and there is incorporated into the Criminal Code something called the Gladue principles, which require a judge to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment, with particular attention to the circumstances of the aboriginal offenders. This bill actually would alter those principles and now includes the phrase “consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community”, which would change the aboriginal sentencing provisions that were existent in the Criminal Code.

I would be most interested in the comments from my colleague as to the impact on aboriginal justice of clause 24 of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a very relevant question and I thank the hon. member for it. Obviously, this bill is not yet proclaimed. It is not in force, and jurisprudence will come forth to interpret the bill. Of course, the importance of the Gladue principles will have to be recognized. Certainly they will be made the intent of the bill, as the legislator has intended, while respecting the rights of aboriginals and their communities.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about this legislation. Victims have been asking about it for years.

I am really pleased that my colleague pointed out the restitution provisions in the bill, because we need to recognize the enormous cost of crime upon victims in Canada. My colleague also mentioned the victims surcharge and other issues. I wonder if he could tell us how the bill would be implemented and what funding might be available for its implementation.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many other means of funding the provisions of this legislation other than the funding that has been allocated through the federal government. There is the victim surcharge, which has been doubled and now has become mandatory. There has been some debate as to the length of time to pay that, which would be clarified through the proposed bill. We recognize that there is a cost to giving victims a greater voice and greater participation in the justice system.

As my learned friend has said, it is long overdue that the bill is put in place, and the costs are warranted and will be dealt with efficiently by the government.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us are taking the bill very seriously.

One of the concerns I have with Bill C-32 is that it would create a certain expectation, but there is no legal obligation with respect to the bill within the judicial system. That leaves me questioning whether that would raise the expectations of victims when we have not really resolved it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it would be raising their expectations, but this legislation is premised on four main tenets. One is notification, notifying the victims of what is going on through the process. They are participating through it; they are made aware of the proceedings and counselled to go through it. Nothing can be worse than the fear of the unknown and not being guided through it.

There is also the aspect of protecting people who are scared when they are witnesses or when offenders are released. That is paramount. That is after the trial.

Then there is compensation, which is dealt with in the restitution aspects of the bill.

Expectations are high. The provisions are long overdue. The bill would certainly bring some balance to the justice system in favour of the victims, not at the detriment of the offenders, but they will have their just place and voice within the system.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that I am very much interested in the bill on victims' rights, but I am a little concerned about the emphasis on restitution, because the government at times slips over into an emphasis on the offender rather than the victim. People have to be lucky to be offended against by someone who has enough resources for restitution to do them any good.

I wonder whether in committee we will be talking about efforts to make sure compensation is available to all victims with some kind of federal-provincial deal on victims' criminal injury compensation funds, which do not exist in Newfoundland or in the territories and are under severe caps in most of the provinces. If people are not lucky enough, in that odd sense, to have an offender who has resources, sometimes there is no compensation available through restitution. I hope we will be discussing this at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when a person is a victim, the only luck we can talk about is the bad luck, quite frankly, of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nine of the ten provinces have a victims compensation fund, and the sums are certainly modest. It is not the average perpetrator who has all kinds of resources to compensate the victim. Obviously, efforts are going to be made to analyze, in situations where they can, that it would be appropriate. There are the victims programs where there is the surcharge where it comes into funding.

It is far from a perfect system, but I think we would all agree that it is a step in the right direction. More negotiation with the provinces and territories is going to be required, and the good collaboration of all members of Parliament would be helpful as well.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the fact that, for the first time, victims would be recognized as victims, and instead of having to bear the burden of being victimized, they would also have the opportunity to understand the process as they go through the trial and also restitution.

Would the parliamentary secretary talk a bit about why this particular legislation is so necessary and why it has been brought forward at this point in time in Canadian history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the consensus is that most victims of crime, when they were put into the judicial system, went there not knowing how the system worked. As I said earlier, nothing can be worse than the fear of the unknown.

Being treated as a piece of the evidence and not with the respect required to participate in a process is not adequate for any human being. It is devoid of all dignity. The way the victims were being treated prior to this cried out for some reparations and some way of treating these people in, at least, an equal fashion to the accused.

That is not to say that the accused are not entitled to rehabilitation and that we should put them in jail and throw away the key. However, the victims could be piloted through this system in which they find themselves through no fault of their own, and have some certainty of what the process is. They could potentially receive some reparation, if at all possible. Obviously, not every perpetrator will be of the millionaire sort.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this important bill, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts. We have indicated New Democrats will be supporting the bill at second reading, and we are looking forward to studying the bill in committee.

We have also made it clear that changes, such as a number of the ones that are suggested in the bill, are long overdue. We know this very clearly from victims, from advocates, from victims ombudsmen, current and past. We know it is the right thing to do in order for victims to have a sense of justice and be able to move forward.

However, we have also flagged the real concern that, like much of what the government commits to, it will not actually materialize, particularly when it comes to resources. We have indicated concern that the federal government does not have a real plan when it comes to the question of resources that would be required, including restitution and/or compensation, and that discussions with provinces and territories are not taking place the way they ought so that all Canadians, no matter where they live, can have equitable access.

Today I would like to talk about the incredible disconnect between what the government is saying and its commitment to victims, and the fact that the government has been notoriously inactive when it comes to prevention of violence in our country.

I am very passionate about violence against women. As the status of women critic for the NDP, I have had the opportunity to meet with women who have suffered violence and survived violence. I have met with women who work in women's shelters, women who advocate on behalf of women who are survivors. I have met lawyers who support these women's pursuit of justice in the courts, and I have met with far too many Canadians, women and men, who feel the devastating impact of violence against women.

The situation, in terms of violence against women in our own country, a country where Canadians believe we are to be equal, I would only describe as being alarming. For example, half of all Canadian women have experienced physical or sexual abuse. The number from Statistics Canada indicates that at least half of the women over the age of 18 across the country have experienced physical or sexual violence.

I want to indicate that the survey was a one-time only survey and took place in 1993, so sadly we do not have more up-to-date information, but there are strong indications that the numbers have not changed.

Sexual assault and partner violence costs the country $9 billion per year. Partially, there is a lack of data. The CCPA released a report earlier this year titled, “The Gap and the Gender Gap: Violence Against Women in Canada”. That report attempted to total up all the costs, from the justice system to health care, incurred due to sexual assault and intimate partner violence, pegging the figure at $9 billion, around $334 per person per year. These victims were mostly women.

Just to give us a very realistic understanding of the cost of violence, and we are not talking about the emotional cost or the psychological cost or even the physical cost on one person, it costs each Canadian $334 to cope with this violence, to deal with this violence. It is an expensive proposition and one that we can certainly do without if we do our job when it comes to prevention.

More than 3,000 women stay in shelters on a given night to escape abuse. Based on surveys filled out by most of the approximately 600 residential shelter facilities in Canada, Stats Canada studies found that on a given night, about 3,300 women across the country were sleeping in shelters to escape abuse.

About 420 women are turned away each day, half of them because the shelters they are trying to access are full. Other reasons for refusing admission include mental health issues and drug-related impairments.

Those are sobering statistics that 420 women each day, very often later in the day, are turned away from shelters. It is not because shelter staff do not want them. It is not because administrators do not see the urgency to deal with the situation. It is because, oftentimes, these shelters are struggling for funds and they do not have the capacity.

While provinces like Manitoba make a real investment in women's shelters, sadly, the federal government has pulled away from supporting programming and core funding for the kind of work that is necessary.

Another statistic is that women are 11 times more likely to be victims of sexual offences. Extrapolating from police reports, Statistics Canada reported earlier in 2013 that violent crime against women was about 5% higher than it was for men, but women were 11 times more likely to suffer a sexual offence than men were and were three times more likely to be the victim of criminal harassment. This provides a very clear understanding of the way in which violence affects women differently and the way in which different kinds of violence are used to victimize women.

We also know that young women are most at risk. The same Statistics Canada report, in 2013, found that the rate of reported violent crime against women between the ages of 15 and 24 was 42% higher than it was for women between 25 and 34 and almost double the rate for women between 35 and 44.

One more final fact to add is that thousands of children are exposed to partner violence. Estimates of the precise number of children exposed each year in Canada to partner violence range widely, from about 120,000 to a high of 800,000. Regardless of the exact number, there is a body of research that suggests that children who witness such violence are more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes, according to Statistics Canada. These include increased risks of emotional behaviour and cognitive and social problems, with more severe outcomes for younger children.

There are six key facts that indicate that violence against women, and the impacts on children, men, families, communities, and our economy cannot be ignored.

As much as the victims bill of rights is important in individual cases, we know from experts who have testified already, and we are sure to hear from others, that this is not the end game and that there needs to be a comprehensive prevention strategy. That is why I am proud to have put forward a motion in this House calling for a national action plan to end violence against women.

I am not sure how many members of the government know, but Canada is the only country among like-minded countries that does not have a national action plan to end violence against women. It is shameful.

We know that violence against women is a part of our daily reality, that it is a part of our shameful reality, that in Canada, despite the gains that we have made as women, we are subjected to violence at greater rates than men, different kinds of violence, and that we continue to suffer day in and day out.

While we are going to hear, undoubtedly, as the bill goes on, more pronouncements from the government that it cares about victims, I would ask where its compassion is on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women. When we talk about violence against women, there is a particular racial reality, which is that indigenous women in Canada face much greater rates of violence simply because they are indigenous women.

We know from an RCMP report that came out a couple of short weeks ago that indigenous women in Canada face four times more violence than non-indigenous women. We know that young indigenous women are five times more likely to be killed than non-aboriginal women. These facts are startling. They are startling in abstraction, but I would say that they are horrifying in reality.

As someone who comes from a part of the country that has been deeply affected by the tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women, I have seen what it means. I have seen the way families break, the way communities are traumatized, the way people are set back. That trauma and that pain are only exacerbated every time a family member or someone who knows about this issue turns on the TV and sees the latest pronouncement by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the Prime Minister that no, there does not need to be an inquiry, or that no, there does not need to be more action, because the government is doing enough, or that no, they do not have to look at the systemic issues, the systemic sexism and the systemic racism that are behind the high rates of violence against indigenous women.

We know that the 1,200 aboriginal women the RCMP have said have gone missing or have been murdered over the last 30 years means that over 30 women every year did not come home to their families. We know that they are sisters, mothers, daughters, cousins. We know that each one of these women lived in circumstances that often were out of their control and that put them at greater risk. They were often marginalized.

When I hear about a victims bill of rights, and when I hear the government's pronouncements when it comes to caring about victims, I want to see the government take that extra step and deal with what is a national tragedy, that of missing and murdered indigenous women, and call a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. I would like to see it commit to an action plan, including a national action plan, so that we prevent having more victims.

I think of one of the many rallies I have attended here on Parliament Hill, where I saw a little aboriginal girl hold up a sign with a hole in it where she put her face, and the sign said, “Am I next?” These are haunting images. This girl has a greater chance of being a victim, the very issue the Conservatives say they care so much about. She knows that she is at greater risk simply because of her identity, because of the colour of her skin, and because of her gender. In a country like Canada, that is shameful. It is shameful to see the way the current government turns its back on aboriginal women, on women in too many cases, and yet continues the rhetoric that somehow this bill or the answers in question period are enough to put a stop to what we are facing.

I am echoing our support for what is in this bill and our real hope that at committee, we can add to this bill and improve it and react to the gaps that clearly exist, particularly in terms of resources. However, I would ask that the Conservatives listen to their own message and their own compassion, as they call it, toward victims. I ask that they take action where it really matters and look at the systemic nature of the violence women face in our country, that aboriginal women face, and that too many communities still face, and deal with the root causes.

We talk about victims after the fact, after the act of violence, the crime or the assault, has taken place. I wonder how much time members of the government take to look at the background of why there are higher levels of violence in certain parts of the country or why there is a greater propensity for there to be criminal acts in certain parts of the country. It is no secret. We have heard from experts who come to Parliament who point to the higher levels of poverty and marginalization among certain populations. I think of the first nations I represent.

I think of the way too many people in these first nations struggle for a basic quality of life. They live in third world living conditions. Their whole community has no running water. People live in mouldy, overcrowded homes with 17 people to a house.

Because of the history of colonization, people have been forced onto reserves that often have very limited capacity for economic development, so the levels of unemployment are outrageous. It can be as high as 80% or more. That means that the sense of economic marginalization people face is extreme. This is coupled with a history of residential schools, where children were taught to wipe away identity, culture, and pride in an attempt to assimilate them. All of these things were very much supported by the government. Those heinous acts have contributed to intergenerational impacts.

Too many people feel marginalized. Too many people experience social breakdown in their communities. Sadly, because of the way our justice system and even our police system have often responded, the element of systemic racism has also emerged. People, because of their identity, because of the colour of their skin, have been treated unfairly.

We know that aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal men, are more highly represented in our prison system. We know that this has everything to do with their living conditions and the way they have been marginalized economically, socially, and culturally in our country, yet the government's response has been to cut important programs, whether it is the prison farms, life skills programming, or healing programming. I think of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which the government also got rid of.

I wonder how much Conservatives actually care about victims or preventing the emergence of other victims if they are cutting the very programs that allow people to gain strength, to heal, to become healthier, and to pull away from violence or violent situations.

I think of the lack of access to treatment programs in my constituency. People come from across Manitoba and across the country to get treatment and heal from drug addiction and alcohol abuse at the medicine lodge in Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. I know that there has been a difficult relationship with the federal government in terms of ongoing funding, despite the overwhelming success of this program. The federal government and the Prime Minister have not been steadfast supporters of a type of programming that is sure to prevent violence and abuse in communities across the country.

Just last week, I gathered with leaders and health professionals in Manitoba to demand that the federal government renew its commitment to maternal health programming for aboriginal women. It made a commitment to women around the world while ignoring aboriginal women here at home. These kinds of supports lift women up from conditions of poverty and marginalization. They support and restore the relationship to that next generation so that they build healthier relationships, build stronger families, and prevent the kind of violent or difficult situations that too many families have faced.

In conclusion, I have indicated our position as a party on the bill, but our position is clear that support for victims means preventing the existence of more victims. It means investing in Canadians. It means bringing people in from the margins. It means building a better country for all of us.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very heartfelt speech. I know we can always depend on her to represent the interests of her constituents and those who are less fortunate in our society.

I know that previously the government placed a lot of emphasis on restitution and pursuing the offender through the courts. I know that we have seen recommendations from the victims ombudsman that this is something that is not likely to be profitable and is very difficult for people to pursue.

I wonder if the member has anything she would like to say on this reliance on restitution.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a very strong advocate when it comes to not just victims' rights, but holding the government to account and encouraging it to move past the rhetoric toward making a difference on the ground.

He raised a critical point. The most recent opposition to the government's emphasis on restitution and punishment in monetary terms has been from lawyers and even judges, who have indicated that there is a major number of offenders who live in abject poverty and cannot afford restitution, as the government puts it. Punishing people in these ways only contributes to the cycle of violence. This can also be a very traumatic experience for victims who have already clearly been traumatized and live with immense challenges. To see this unfold would further exacerbate that kind of trauma. When it comes to compensation in the financial piece, will the government step up?

Sadly, in the past, when it came to legislation that required financial commitment, no matter what the area might be, there had been a lot of talk by the government and no action. We have also been very clear that engagement with the provinces and territories has not existed, not just on this issue but, frankly, on almost anything the government does. Depending on where one lives, there might be greater access to compensation simply because of where the person lives, which is not the Canadian way.

We are asking the federal government to show leadership and to commit to working with the NDP at committee to address these gaps and truly stand up for victims.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of themes she raised, one with respect to poverty and the other with respect to the mixed jurisdictions in terms of jurisdiction over the Criminal Code and jurisdiction over the administration of justice.

With regard to her comments on poverty, while we also support this bill, we see some potential problems that we hope will be addressed in committee. One of them the member has referred to, and that is this problem that the government has with respect to the constitutionality of many of its pieces of criminal legislation and the action that is being taken by judges, particularly with respect to victim surcharges.

I would ask for any comments the member would care to make with respect to the potential constitutional challenges around the victim surcharge provisions contained in the bill.

The other point that she touched upon, and that I would invite her to elaborate further on, is that this bill would actually impose costs on the provinces to the extent that it would introduce a complaints mechanism and a right to information mechanism. Given that the administration and prosecution of Criminal Code offences in provinces, not in territories, is done and funded by the provinces, it is effectively a download or an additional expense that will be incurred by the provinces.

I would be quite interested in her thoughts on federal-provincial consultation and the potential download of costs that would be the result of the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising two important dimensions here. I appreciate that, earlier this evening, he referred to the need to respect the Gladue decision and the constitutional obligation to abide by that decision.

It connects with the question of “victim surcharges” and recognizing that people, particularly many aboriginal people, are so far in the situations of marginalization and poverty. This kind of model is unrealistic, and it would cause further marginalization and potential trauma.

This is absolutely a critical area that needs to be discussed, including the potential for constitutional challenges if the adequate changes are not made.

To the second point, sadly, the federal government has shown time and time again that it is not interested in working with provinces and territories on a host of different issues. We have seen the downloading, from health care to post-secondary education, to first nations programming, in many ways.

In terms of justice and cost, the administering of justice Bill S-2, another bill that the government is very proud of talking about, is an excellent example of the way that costs are being incurred by provincial justice departments to be able to comb through and apply the new matrimonial property rights law that the federal government has brought in. There is no aspect of the legislation that indicates that the government would support these costs or contribute to them at the provincial level. It simply goes ahead and says that this is how it has to get done.

That is not how Canada was built. It certainly challenges the notion of a confederate system and the Confederation that we are all a part of.

I hope that in committee, there is a steadfast commitment that the government is able to make to working with the provinces and making a difference for Canadians, no matter where they live.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to the member's comments, and I found some of them rather disappointing.

For the first time in Canadian history, we would have a victims bill of rights that should be collaboratively put together by all sides of the House. It is not a political football. It is recognizing right now that victims do have rights.

I, personally, have worked with many victims who have been in courts and who are absolutely devastated by what happened to them. They had no one. They did not know how the process worked. They did not have any hope of restitution in any way, shape, or form.

What I have heard tonight is concern for the perpetrator who might not have the money to pay the restitution. I would ask the member across the way to consider the fact that knowing that there is some restitution involved when someone is victimized, maybe the perpetrator would stop for a minute and think that committing the crime against the victim would not be a good thing.

Having said that, I wonder if the member opposite could consider that we are considering victims here, and if she could talk about the victims a little bit and how this would help them. Could she talk about what she could contribute to enhance it in such a way that victims could be reassured that members on all sides of the House are on their side?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member was disappointed. I was sent here by my constituents and as part of the NDP to speak out on their behalf.

I have been very clear on both the strengths and the major gaps and weaknesses that exist in this bill. It is incumbent on the government, instead of just sticking to good-sounding rhetoric, to actually step up. It should not just support this bill in terms of financing, but also make a real financial commitment to preventing violence and abuse in our country.

That starts by preventing more victims, investing in prevention, calling a national inquiry into missing and murdered women, looking to pull everyone out of the margins, and looking out for Canadians' well-being every day.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I know it is getting late, but I would like to take this opportunity to share my views and take part in the debate on bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

In light of what is proposed in the bill, I think that we, as legislators, must all unite and support this government initiative. However, in my humble opinion, the bill does not go far enough in protecting the rights of the victims, and several experts share this view. I will come back later to the reasons why I think the bill should be improved.

Nevertheless, it is certainly a first step in the right direction, and we will be able to propose amendments in committee and at a later time, when the act is reviewed after being implemented, to identify what needs to be improved.

Therefore, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the victims of crime in a meaningful way, and that they will make sure that this bill of rights does not remain just a statement of principles with no actual effect.

In its current form, Bill C-32 codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution under the Canadian victims bill of rights. It also amends the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canada Evidence Act to incorporate these rights.

More specifically, the bill broadens the definition of “victim”, which will include any individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss, and clarifies the fact that a victim's spouse can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf. This applies to conjugal relationships having lasted for at least a year. I think this provision is critical to enhancing protection and fairness for victims.

Second, the bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to see a photograph of the offender at the time of the offender's release, to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.

This provision will help prevent potentially traumatic situations should the victim inadvertently come into contact with the offender. It also permits the disclosure of information that the victim can use to make informed decisions about how to live his life once the offender has completed his sentence. For example, the victim might make decisions based on the offender's release date.

Bill C-32 also amends the Criminal Code to ensure that the court informs victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor once the plea of guilty has been accepted.

These changes will enable witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in some cases, make publication bans for witnesses under the age of 18 mandatory, permit victims who do not attend an offender's parole hearing to listen to an audio recording of the hearing, and enable witnesses speaking on a victim's behalf to have with them a photograph of the victim if it would not disrupt judicial proceedings.

Another change has to do with the Canada Evidence Act and states that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused.

Bill C-32 creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated.

It also codifies the right to make a restitution order and specifies that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed.

This is an entire series of measures that will likely bring the debate back to victims' rights, if the measures are applied. On the other hand, I see two major gaps that, in my opinion, should prompt my colleagues to work together to give this bill more teeth in order to truly bring justice to victims of crime.

Bill C-32 creates no legal obligation for justice system stakeholders to implement these rights. The charter only provides for but does not guarantee access to a rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims' rights have been violated.

To date, no specific amount of money seems to be allocated to implement complaint review mechanisms or to help the provinces with this. If the Conservatives are serious and want to do more than make grand announcements at press conferences, then Bill C-32 would set out legal requirements.

My other concern refers to the same point, the fact that there does not seem to be any financial resources set aside for this initiative. How can the government consider providing protection, financial support or psychological support, as proposed in the bill, without a budget?

It is important that victims have access to the support and the services they need. We must invest and work with the provinces. The government must ensure that it provides the kind of support that is needed. It must implement procedures that will really help the victims and avoid proposing measures just to score political points.

Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, feels that the Conservative government's Bill C-32 should be amended because it could be stronger and it overlooks many aspects of the problem. She believes that the Conservative bill could improve Canada's penal system, but many of the measures could be far more forceful. In addition, many other issues affecting victims of crime were not even addressed.

She feels that this bill is problematic because the charter gives rights to victims of crime but provides little in the way of enforcement.

The ombudsman would like to see victims receive prompt redress by having access to a lawyer so that they can assert their rights during criminal proceedings. The ombudsman feels that the safety of victims is still a definite priority.

The NDP will always support victims in their quest for justice. We are mindful that those who have suffered are likely in the best position to educate us about what they need. They have lived through some potentially heinous experiences.

That is why we will continue consulting them and consulting victims' rights groups. By talking to those concerned, we will be able to create fair and effective legislation. I have no doubt that my colleagues will carefully consider any opportunities to improve the bill at committee stage.

The committee must ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights works well with our justice system and that it addresses victims' expectations and recommendations. The government has taken eight years to get to work on a 2006 election promise. Victims have suffered enough.

I invite all of my colleagues to roll up their sleeves so that we can offer Canadian victims the protection and rights that will help them find justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was her second this evening.

I should point out that many NDP members have made speeches in the House this evening. However, many members of the other parties have remained very silent. In the last six hours, I think I heard only one Conservative member. Frankly, I think that this bill deserves a much more rigorous debate than what we have seen so far this evening. I am therefore wondering why the Conservatives were in such a hurry to force us to sit until midnight when, in fact, they have nothing to say.

However, my colleague has raised some very interesting points that deserve our attention.

Court decisions have shown that, when a person has no means to make restitution to a victim, that in fact is not a restitution. Moreover, a restitution risks being a sanction that adds to a sanction already handed down by the court or the Superior Court.

How could we have a bill that does not come with an envelope and that does not propose any funding for victims?

Restitutions to victims are monetary in nature. According to the Supreme Court, a restitution that an accused cannot afford to pay is a mechanical restitution, which should not exist.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that perspective is actually quite interesting. We, in the NDP, want victims to have access to the support and services that they need.

Some members have been calling for years for the government to deal with the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and commission an inquiry. Those women are among the victims of crime. This has to be done in co-operation with aboriginal nations.

We also have to work with the provinces. I am sure that the Conservatives are aware that some processes for victims of crime already exist, including in the province of Quebec. Those people also receive financial support. If they cannot afford to hire a lawyer, they are assigned one. Some community organizations also look after victims of crime. Our province has gone quite far in that area.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I found perplexing in recent days is that the opposition House leader seems to have the perplexing notion that when the NDP members are filibustering bills, there is some obligation on the part of other parties to join them in that process and do the exact same thing. He is complaining of silence from the other side because we are not filibustering our own bills. Needless to say, on the government side, we think the bill is good and we have stated our position clearly. Let us get on with it and let it advance. If we think it is a good thing, Canadians want to have it in place.

My question for the hon. member is a very simple one. Since the NDP wants to see this go to committee, since much debate has already occurred, would the hon. member agree that the best way to get the bill to advance, as her party wants to have it advance, is to allow the debate to come to a conclusion so we can vote on it and send it to committee and that way help out victims?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have heard that member say such a thing. It even sounds like a broken record.

He is skipping a step. We have to have our say. If my constituents have never heard of Vanessa's law, it is because I never had the chance to speak to it in the House. It is important not to skip that step. Maybe the member has been in politics for such a long time that he does not feel like doing it anymore, but we need to express our views and our constituents need to know what we are talking about. The only way to communicate with our constituents is to be able to explain bills, whether they are Conservative bills or ours. This is totally democratic. What is undemocratic is limiting our ability to speak on a regular basis.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will have only four minutes before we break for the evening.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important topic. Of course I am disappointed to be speaking on it somewhere near midnight.

I would like to start by thanking the House staff, the pages, the security people, the bus drivers, all of those who are supporting us in these midnight sittings.

Having heard the comments by the government House leader just a few minutes ago, I will have to try to condense everything into four minutes because it sounds a bit like he is about to move time allocation on this bill, which would not surprise me because there are hardly any bills left to move it on. Therefore, I will try to make my points as quickly as I can.

The New Democrats support victims' rights. We have supported the private members' bills that have come forward. We have voted for those bills. We will be voting for Bill C-479 when it comes forward, and we will support this bill going to committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Do it now.

[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.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I'm sure the whip will sub you in.

[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.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Same speech all night long. Wrap it up.

[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.

[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.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[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.

Victims Bill of Rights

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I said I look forward in anticipation of future budgets, because it is more than just the legislation. It is important that we recognize resources, and by resources I am referring to finances, obviously, among other things. Finances is a very important aspect of resources for supporting this particular bill.

It is a concern we have consistently expressed in terms of how the government likes to come up with legislative ideas and thoughts and bring them in with a lot of fanfare, press releases, and photo ops and go for those three-inch headlines. It is the follow-through we are concerned about.

When the member makes reference to the financial shortcomings or resource shortcomings of this legislation, we share the concern. I am not too sure if this could have been amended in the legislation. I am not the critic for the legislation. I would have to look to the Liberal Party critic and follow his lead.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not to abuse the floor, but I have a feeling that in my own speech, I might not actually get to this point.

I just wonder if my colleague would care to comment on one of the conclusions that comes from chapter 9, which was written by Dr. Annette Bailey of Ryerson University, in a book called Gun Violence, Disability and Recovery.

She talks about one kind of service that is needed that really does not exist provincially, and certainly not nationally, which she refers to as “trauma-informed grief counselling”:

Several service providers interviewed feel there are insufficient grief support services for survivors of violent crime in general. Those that do exist often do not address the specific needs of gun violence survivors, whose trauma may be compounded by stigma, guilt, and self-blame.... Making trauma-informed counselling available to survivors, however, “requires a shift at the national level in recognising grief as a mental health issue”.

I would like to ask whether my hon. colleague would agree with me that, apart from the preventative initiatives he spoke about correctly, we are probably missing serious downstream questions about the impact on victims, including family members, and that recognizing grief as a mental health issue could take us some way to a more holistic, fuller view of the impact of crime on victims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had an unfortunate and sad experience. I was with a mother when it was first announced that her son had been brutally murdered. The police officer walked in and said, “We have found your son's body, and he has been murdered.” The profound impact that had on this individual was truly amazing. One cannot help but feel a great deal of sympathy for her because of what she had to go through in the years that followed. There is no doubt that we can do a lot more on the whole front of trauma for victims of crime.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill. I should note that I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I do want to start on what I recognize is a negative note. Most of what is in the bill is indeed positive. However, the bill is extremely limited in its understanding, both of the needs of victims, and the responsibilities of society through government to help victims. If we are all going to be supporting it going to committee and possibly voting for it at third reading, I think we have to make sure that the hype does not outdistance the reality. Much work will need to be done on deeper issues around victimhood than the bill addresses.

I may not go as far as leading lawyer Clayton Ruby has gone in calling this “shallow symbolism”. However, I would agree with the first victims ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, when he commented, on April 3, to CBC, that the government has over-promised and under-delivered in this bill. Not to get into the crazy game of grading bills, but I guess I will. He said that he would give this a C-plus or a D-minus, without even looking at what the government had been promising in advance. The hype in advance means that he would probably give it an even worse grade.

By way of introduction, I would also note that a victim's mother, who spoke on Global News, said something that I think is extremely eloquent. She said, “Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth”.

That is not to say that is entirely true about the bill, but that is generally the situation when it comes to how victims, including the family members of immediate victims, friends, and even the community, the neighbours of victims, are treated in our society. This does not have to be the case. There are societies where a much more coordinated, holistic, and robust response to the pain, the grief, and the trauma caused by crime is dealt with more effectively than in Canada.

One of the reasons that it is not dealt with that effectively here has to do with one of the virtues of our country, which is federalism. That means that by and large this has been left as a kind of social service in the philosophy of the federal government. The federal government gets involved in sporadic funding for post-crime victim support, but it is just that; it is funding, and it is not an attempt to truly create a national framework.

I first became aware of a limitation in the government's approach to victims of crime when early after being elected, I was on the justice committee, considering a bill that would increase offender surcharges. A number of members of the committee clearly stated that between surcharges—that is, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime pay—and provincial programs, the federal government's responsibility for assistance, which includes the need for programs and funding, basically ends.

I felt then and I feel now that this is a highly inadequate view. It does not understand our jurisdiction, federally, over crime and criminal law. It basically leaves victims after the court process, in terms of jurisdiction to create programs, and completely buries that responsibility, as I said before, within ad hoc spending power involvement.

I do not want to say there is nothing in the bill. There is an addition to this philosophy of perpetrators paying, in sections 16 and 17 of Bill C-32. These are new restitution provisions that bring our criminal law closer to some civil law models, where every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender. If that order is made by the judge, the order is entered as a civil court judgment that can be enforced against the offender. This is a welcomed provision.

However, everyone will recognize that it has limits. It would require offenders to be capable of paying. It would be the same problem that we have with surcharges, in that it would be a very inadequate way to ensure we are focusing on the victim and that there is compensation.

The restitution feature would only add another element to that, which would be far outdistanced by situations in which offenders and perpetrators who are convicted would not have the resources. Therefore, the idea of a restitution order would have no meaningful impact on the kinds of compensation that could help victims to deal with trauma and grief and pick up the pieces after their own victimization following a crime, or that of a loved one.

At around that time, I began to interact with a very inspiring woman in my constituency. Joan Howard lost a son over ten years ago, in 2003, to gun violence. He was shot dead with a handgun in the hallway of a building in Toronto-Danforth.

Kempton Howard, after whom a park is named in our riding, was a role model to countless teens, through his volunteer work in Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre's Boys and Girls Club. He was a moderator of a junior leadership program, an after-school children's program leader, a summer day camp counsellor, and a youth basketball coach. He was also a recipient of the Youth Ontario Volunteer Services Award.

Joan spent many years dealing with the trauma and the long-lasting grief, and then she began to ask herself what she could do. She has done many things. She has become part of a peer support system, which I will talk about briefly, if I have time.

More recently, we have joined together for a petition campaign that has been tabled on many occasions in the House. That petition asks the House of Commons to better understand that victims of crime, especially crimes of violence and crimes involving guns, include the loved ones of the direct victims. As a consequence, we need to create a meaningful countrywide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as for victims of crime who survive the crimes against them, and ensure adequate funding for such a system.

Reverend Sky Starr runs an amazing program called Out of Bounds, with the thematic subtitle of “grief support from the inside out”, which involves the mutual peer support model. Between Joan and Reverend Starr, I have become inspired, or at least better informed, about the need to take trauma and ongoing grief seriously, as something that destroys lives and whole communities.

To that end, we had a teach-in here on the Hill, on December 10, 2013, which happened to be international Human Rights Day. It was a seminar on the Hill, to which a number of MPs from all parties came. Actually, the Conservative Party did not come, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice did send a staff member. The staff member seemed to have been extremely moved by what he heard and learned. We hoped that this session would go back to the parliamentary secretary and then to the Minister of Justice to factor into the coming victims bill of rights. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the case.

That said, I do not think that anything in the victims bill of rights precludes us from moving forward in the future on a better understanding of the basic points that Reverend Starr made during that seminar. She outlined three crucial needs. First, there is a need for sustainable funding for grassroots organizations and resources to help organizations find funding opportunities to actually help victims. Second, trauma-specific policies are needed to deal with the lack of trauma support that currently exists in communities. Third, the recognition of grief as a mental health issue has to be first and foremost a starting point. The grief and trauma that flows from gun violence, in many ways, is very particular and very long-lasting.

I will end my comments by paying tribute to another member of my community, Jonathan Khan, who was shot dead on the Danforth with a gun. I attended his funeral in a synagogue in North Toronto only a few months ago, and again had occasion to realize how easily lives are destroyed, not simply the lives of those killed, but those who survive them.

The only thing that propels people forward are support networks. We, as a society, need to help create those support networks and not rely only on families.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. Because of his professional background, he is able to provide far greater insight into certain provisions included in this bill.

I would like to hear his thoughts about some of those provisions in the bill. At some point in time, will there not be a certain amount of overlap or some issues concerning the decision-making process within the legal system? Does he think that the government is meddling in decisions that should be made by judges, lawyers, and crown attorneys?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be completely honest, that is not something I have looked at in this bill yet. However, I can see where the member is coming from.

After having spoken with the justice critic, I think it is very important that the committee hear from witnesses who can tell us a bit more about that issue. I am sorry, but that is the best I can do. However, it is a very important question.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, this bill is a step in the right direction. At the same time, there are many flaws in the bill and many resources missing. What is more, the government talks about giving victims more rights, but Bill C-32 establishes no legal obligation for those working in the criminal justice system to implement these rights.

I would like my colleague to comment on an excerpt from a quote by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes:

Enhancing victims rights in criminal proceedings is certainly necessary, but doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime.

What is the point of having this bill if at the end of the day the rights cannot be implemented and there are no resources to help the victims?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question more or less speaks to the theme of my speech, which is that the bill does not put the federal government on the hook for any costs related to victim support and that there is no real vision for support in this bill, in the Canadian victims bill of rights. Victims need support after the process itself.

I think this was done deliberately. The government made this choice. I do not understand why, exactly, with all the fanfare around the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I do not think that this is something that can be fixed in committee. This is something that will have to come from the party, the government, and I hope it will come within a year. There is truly a gap in the vision for victims in this bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to say a few words about the repercussions this bill will have on the process. The courts are currently quite backlogged and trials take a long time. Does my colleague think that this bill will slow down the legal process even more?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Yes, I imagine that this bill will make the process longer and complicate procedures, which will affect victims. I do not know exactly how the federal government can fix that without giving the provinces more resources.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I soberly rise this afternoon to debate Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. This bill is quite large and just the summary takes up several pages. Thus, I will not be able to discuss the entire bill at length.

As legislators in the House, we are often called on to strike a balance. When we draft laws, we are always looking for balance, sometimes between complicated things that at first glance seem contradictory, and we have to be able to harmonize them.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have solid democratic institutions and law and order. There is a separation between the legislative branch, whose power we exercise in the House of Commons, and the judicial branch. It is very important to remember that when we draft and debate bills.

All members, no matter their politics, have the same objective: to improve this country, serve Canadians and defend the interests of all Canadians, not just those of specific groups. Sometimes when we launch our political career, we have different and deep personal convictions or motivations. However, we must not let these personal convictions get the upper hand of certain fundamental principles that govern our country.

With respect to the victims bill of rights, the NDP is listening to the victims and to their demands. We want their voices to be heard because they often suffer in silence and receive no support. They go through very trying times.

With this bill, the government seems to want to give victims a voice. However, will the bill give them the means to make this happen?

According to the analyses we have looked at, there is no evidence that this bill would provide the means to implement this bill of rights.

The summary states the following:

(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.

I cannot discuss this in detail, but we have to ask ourselves whether these measures can really be implemented. What the government is trying to do here is make sure that individuals accused of crimes compensate the victims. That can be problematic because sometimes those accused of a crime do not have the means to compensate the victim at all.

The government actually had a commission in place that could compensate victims of violent crimes. I looked into this recently, and some provinces have created commissions to ensure that victims of violent crimes are compensated, but that is not the case across Canada. Maybe the government could find a way to include in the victims bill of rights a mechanism to help victims through a commission that could compensate them. I encourage the government to do that.

It will also be worth our while to carefully examine other issues in committee, because some of them may surface later on. Therefore, it will be critical to conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee.

For example, as I mentioned, what steps will be taken regarding damages incurred by victims? Also, as I pointed out during the debates, the bill presents the theory, the plan, the intentions. However, how will this be implemented in our justice system? As we know, there are long delays right now. There are lineups, so to say. Will this bill make the process more cumbersome or not? I am not saying the government's intentions regarding the victims bill of rights are not good. However, we must determine whether this will bog down the process.

I also noticed that victims of domestic violence would be required to testify. I am not sure if I understood correctly, but we should really take a close look at this provision. We must understand that domestic violence is a very particular issue, and we really need to be careful.

This huge bill means well. It is a matter of knowing whether the government is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement it and to ensure victims are truly protected.

I also hope that at committee stage the government will listen to those who will propose necessary amendments to this legislation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was most interesting, as always.

I was very pleased that she talked about the resources that victims need but cannot always get, such as services, help or support. Conservative bills often talk about helping people and tackling crime and abuse, but we never see any resources to back up this laudable goal and nice rhetoric.

With regard to victims and crimes, a number of studies and case histories in other countries show that the one thing that deters criminals from committing a crime is the likelihood that they will get caught.

Fighting crime is not merely about imposing minimum sentences. It is primarily to ensure we have the police and border resources, for example, to ensure that those who commit offences are caught and face the consequences of their actions.

It always comes down to resources, and I thank my colleague for pointing out the need for resources if we really want to help victims.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for also reminding us of this aspect of the issue.

Some of the comments made after this bill was introduced indicate that the federal government is backing away from compensation for victims of crime. It is doing so by trying to make offenders, those who commit the crime, pay.

However, how can that happen when some people accused of violent crimes live in extreme poverty? They will not be able to compensate the victims. It will be impossible. Nor will they be able to pay if they are in prison.

If the government really wants to help victims, it should provide more funding for programs that already exist and partner with the provinces that have victim compensation programs. This was one comment in an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail. It should also establish these programs across Canada and properly fund them.

The federal government, which says it stands up for victims, should be the first to rise and applaud this recommendation.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a correctional officer and I saw many victims and met many people who victimized others. I am not sure that people want to constantly revisit and relive this situation. However, they do need a lot of support.

Does my hon. colleague have any further comments about the victim assistance program?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making that point.

It is not just about money. All the parties have deep wounds. Human nature is very fragile. When someone is a victim or witnesses a violent act, they need psychological help to cope with the ordeal. They also need more technical help in navigating all the steps in the process.

Furthermore, it is important to ensure that there is some possibility of redemption. That is part of our human nature and part of a long process and a long road.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by assessing the merit of what is new about Bill C-32, which creates the Canadian victims bill of rights.

As I have done in the past, I will assess this bill's merits, meaning that I will focus on specific components of the legislation we are looking at today. Given that Bill C-32 is quite broad and I do not want stray off topic, my comments will address specific elements.

Some provisions in this legislation introduce changes to administrative rules and rules about the admissibility of evidence. During my speech, I will try to define the potential impact that this will have on the practice of criminal law, for both the prosecution and the defence.

I often try to relate bills to my former profession. That is why I will try to take the principles of the bill and apply them to the practice and reality of someone who practises law. That is my goal for the next few minutes.

I will also talk about the possibility of a victim's spouse testifying if the victim is deceased or incapable of acting on their own behalf, as long as the couple has been in a conjugal relationship for more than a year. That is one of the components of Bill C-32; however, the Canada Evidence Act already addresses that issue.

It seems to me, based on my evaluation, that the government is simply trying to take credit for that measure, since most Canadians are not necessarily aware of the subtleties of the Canada Evidence Act and the rules governing the presentation of evidence. It is quite possible that the government is introducing concepts in its bill that already exist and are automatically applied by lawyers, legal practitioners and those involved in the justice system. This would give the government a certain amount of media coverage.

This aspect of Bill C-32 merely codifies a pre-existing override to the best evidence rule. This rule is set out in the Canada Evidence Act and applies to all criminal and civil proceedings and any other matters under federal jurisdiction.

The best evidence rule is one of the first notions students learn in criminal law courses. According to this rule, jurists and judges must always try to find the best evidence. If a witness has evidence to present or wants to be heard, then technically, he or she must be allowed to testify.

The same is true under the Canada Evidence Act. Under Bill C-32, if victims are physically or emotionally unable to appear in court and testify as a result of the incident that occurred, their spouse could testify on their behalf. There are terms, conditions and technicalities that go along with that, and the victim and his or her spouse also must have cohabited for a period of at least one year, but the fact remains that the spouse could come and testify on behalf of a victim who is unable to do so.

The Canada Evidence Act already provides for that eventuality. Subsection 6(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, entitled “Evidence of person with a physical disability”, reads as follows:

If a witness has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible.

This provision covers any physical disability that would technically prevent an individual from testifying in court.

I would also like to quote subsection 6(2), entitled “Evidence of a person with a mental disability”, which reads as follows:

If a witness with a mental disability is determined under section 16 to have the capacity to give evidence and has difficulty communicating by reason of a disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible.

What the government is trying to codify today with this victims bill of rights is, to a certain extent, already covered. My colleagues opposite will likely object and say that minor details have been changed and updates have been made, including the length of time that the couple must have been cohabiting before the spouse can testify on the victim's behalf. However, this eventuality is already covered. I will come back to the idea of updates later.

By way of information, I am going to read subsection 6(3), which says the following:

The court may conduct an inquiry to determine if the means by which a witness may be permitted to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) is necessary and reliable.

The rules are flexible and apply case by case. The court has to determine whether, under the Canada Evidence Act, the witness who should technically give evidence as an individual is in full possession of his faculties and competent to do so. There is significant latitude and discretion here.

That is more or less how criminal law works on the ground. Judges enjoy significant latitude, and legal interveners in general enjoy significant latitude in applying the rules of evidence. I have seen situations in which witnesses were called to testify even if they were in a separate room or a special booth set up for that purpose. There is equipment set up in the courts to handle any situation, such as when it is a child or a victim who does not want to face the attacker. All kinds of situations are taken into account, and the justice system being what it is, it has to adapt to the realities and vagaries that come up from time to time in a jurist's life.

The main objective of the NDP legal experts assigned to study this bill in committee is to ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights is a good fit with the Canadian justice system and responds to the victims' expectations and recommendations. That is the problem because aside from all the window dressing and highly publicized media events, we must first and foremost focus on the essentials. I keep saying, like a broken record, that we must focus on the position expressed not by just a few individuals or groups whose message provides a good sound bite, but also by all Canadians. In this case here, we know that there are many victims all across the country. Rather than using victims for purely utilitarian purposes, we must truly listen, take note and adjust our own legislative tools accordingly.

The bill before us has all the hallmarks of a utilitarian initiative geared toward gaining—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Unfortunately, it is now 1:30 p.m. The hon. member will have two minutes and 30 seconds to finish his speech the next time this bill is before the House.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 6 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.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak in support of the bill. Our party has been very clear that we are in support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time speaking over the government House leader. If he could have the decency to quietly—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. All hon. members are happy to see the two House leaders speaking, but possibly they would like to take it outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we show respect to all members of this place, particularly given the nature of the bill before us, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

As I have mentioned, we fully support this bill, but we have raised a number of issues. The bill could be strengthened with some straightforward amendments. I note that a good number of the inadequacies that we have pointed out mirror those raised by the ombudsman, and I will reiterate those shortly.

I am pleased to say that in the courts in my province, and most likely courts across Canada, victims of crime and families of victims have been allowed in many instances to present victim statements both for sentencing purposes and during parole proceedings. It is very important that those most impacted by crime have an opportunity to be heard.

We fully support the principles of this legislation. These promised provisions have been a long time coming. It is good that the government has finally come forward with the bill. It is regrettable, however, that the government failed to include resources in the budget to enable people to participate constructively in these processes. That is one of the inadequacies clearly identified by the victims and the families of the victims and the ombudsman herself.

We support sending the bill to committee. We look forward to recommendations from many quarters as to how the bill could be strengthened to protect the rights of victims while participating in the criminal process.

The media covers bad cases in every jurisdiction. There is great sympathy for the families of victims of serious crimes. In my city there was the case of Dougald Miller, who was attacked and seriously injured and has been bedridden ever since. He is being tended to by his wonderful wife Lesley Miller, who has attended every court session and every parole hearing. Our heart goes out to her. At committee we hope that one of the recommendations will be for more resources to be provided to the families who are left to deal with the impacts of crime.

As I have mentioned, one of the most cogent presentations on this bill was made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. I would like to reiterate to the House what the ombudsman's comments have been on this bill.

She, as we have, commended the government for introducing the first ever victims bill of rights and for the consultative process that took place, but there continues to be debate about the bill's contents and some of its inadequacies. She said that Bill C-32 marks a significant cultural shift. She recommended that it be strengthened by adding additional provisions. I would like to outline some of those provisions to the House.

The federal ombudsman previously made 30 recommendations to the government to be included in the bill. Her commentary speaks to where she feels the government has and has not addressed those recommendations.

It is important for us to keep in mind that the ombudsman prepared her recommendations after direct consultation with many victims of crime. They are solidly based recommendations premised on the actual experiences and needs of the victims and their families.

The ombudsman also stated that she supports expanding the definition of “victim” to include those who experience property damage, but she is concerned that it excludes certain categories of persons who might be harmed. She suggested that could be revisited.

The ombudsman supports, as do we, victims of crime being recognized, but there is no way for them to exercise that right. While it is called a right, there is no recourse to exercise that right. Normally when rights are enacted, there is some kind of mechanism whereby those rights can be enforced, such as in the courts, at a tribunal, or some kind of formal complaint process where there is redress. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide that. A number of people have raised that issue. I think that will be discussed in committee. We are hopeful, as is the ombudsman, that those inadequacies will be addressed.

It also allows the victim, on request, to have access to the defender's bail or probation order. Suggestions have been made that this should not have to be a request, because many victims or their families may not be aware of these rights and opportunities, and that this information should simply be automatically provided.

Here is one issue that has been raised by one of my colleagues, our critic for public safety. Interestingly, simultaneous to the tabling of this bill, there was another bill tabled that dealt with victims' rights. It was victims' rights before the Parole Board, I understand. These two bills will come forward to two different committees simultaneously. One will go to the justice committee and one to the public safety committee. However, they do not seem to be particularly consistent. Therefore, it is recommended that this be considered during the review of Bill C-32.

One of the recommendations has been that in many cases with these crimes—and certainly I can speak to this because I was one of the founders of the sexual assault centre in Edmonton—victims may not feel comfortable attending proceedings and coming face to face with the accused. Therefore, the recommendation is that, in the review of the bill, perhaps we give consideration to video conferencing so that the victims could, potentially, just observe the proceedings, or they may even be willing to give testimony or statements, but not be physically present.

In addition, the ombudsman has commended the fact that judges will have to take victim safety and security into account at various stages of the criminal process including bail, plea bargaining, sentencing, protecting against production orders, testimonial aids and measures to protect witnesses. Indeed, it is good that victims of crime and their families who are impacted should have potential access to all of these proceedings. However, from my experience, the biggest barrier for impacted persons—whether it is a regulatory offence, or whether or not it is an important decision impacting a community, or whether or not it is an alleged crime—is that they do not have equal access to the resources to participate constructively. This has certainly been the problem in many environmental reviews, many environmental appeals, and is also the same problem with victims coming forward.

Regrettably, there are also few to no resources made available in many cases. For example, there may be a crime that occurs in Fort McMurray, Alberta, but the family of the victim may be based in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, it would be a huge expense for them to appear at a trial or a parole hearing and actually testify. They would have to pay the travel expenses. They may have to take time off work. They may have to get child care. There are two potential solutions here. One is to provide the funding so that they can genuinely intervene, or secondly, use video conferencing.

Therefore, I look forward to all parties taking a close look at this bill in committee. It is one thing to suggest that it is good that victims should be able to participate. It is another thing to actualize that right. That right is only actualized when they can constructively and realistically participate.

I look forward to questions from members on the bill. Again, I commend the government for coming forward, but we look forward to the government actually being open to amendments, and open to amendments coming from all quarters. I know that all parties look forward to witnesses coming forward and testifying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. The amount of work she put into it reflects really well on the amount of work she puts in her own riding. She is probably the best MP that riding has ever had.

As for the bill, she mentioned toward the end that there is a problem with financing. Once again, we are in a situation where the government is downloading onto the provinces the costs of these programs. There seems to be a real misunderstanding with the government when it comes to affording individuals rights without any ability to exercise them. It would seem it only cares for rich people, the bourgeois, who can afford rights. If one is less well off, how can one possibly be able to afford the rights that are being presented? Is this not just another example of the government ignoring the average Canadian and just making bills for people who are wealthy and probably already have sufficient access to the courts?

I am wondering how we can address the problem of the lack of funding.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, actually, that was one aspect I meant to mention but did not. My understanding is that this law would empower the courts to impose restitution orders. The problem is that in not all cases does a convicted person have the resources to compensate the victim or the family of the victim.

There are a lot of cost issues related to crime. One of them is direct compensation if one's property or person are harmed. The ombudsman has pointed out that the bill would also not accommodate people if there was damage to property in the course of a crime.

In addition to that, I note that the MP for Toronto—Danforth said that what we do not have is a fund to generally support the victims of crime who might suffer trauma. We talk a lot about support for mental health. There are a lot of needs associated with the victims of crime, and we look forward to finally seeing something in the budget to address this bigger issue. However, it should also be addressed in the bill to be a real right.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions and I would like to put one of them to the member, who gave an excellent speech.

In Quebec, there is a law that helps victims of crime. Has the member noticed whether laws have been harmonized or the provinces have been consulted about harmonizing different laws in order to move in that direction?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I am afraid I cannot answer it, but it is obviously an important factor.

It will be important when the bill comes to committee that we hear testimony from the Attorneys General and the Solicitors General across the country, not simply from victims' rights groups that are NGOs and are probably grossly underfunded. It will also be really important to know which of these provisions would duplicate what is already going on in the provincial courts. Do they conflict in any cases? Are there any cases where there could be dual funding for some of these initiatives?

It is an excellent factor that should be considered in the review of this bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives always say that they are tough on crime and that they stand up for people affected by crime. However, my colleague just said that the people targeted by this bill will not necessarily be aware of the recourse they have.

Will victims advocacy groups be required to give them that information? What does my colleague think the government could do to ensure that there is greater awareness of victims' rights and that the law is fully implemented?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I could briefly reference the ombudsman's report. She has very carefully laid out a number of recommendations that would embellish and strengthen this bill.

It is certainly important that if people are going to access rights, they have to be informed of their rights. There should be an obligation on the government in this bill to inform all victims of what their rights are under the bill, who is responsible, and what the process would be.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I would like to begin by saying that the NDP is going to support this bill so that it can be examined in committee. We should examine it clause by clause as carefully as possible. We are going to ask the witnesses called by the government, the NDP and the third party good questions, because that is important.

We have been waiting eight years for this bill. Finally, it is here and we have to be able to work with the government to make changes and amendments if necessary.

I am going to provide a bit of background. This is a promise that the Conservatives made eight years ago. When the Conservative government took office, it promised, at several press conferences, that it would introduce a bill to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights. It happened this year. Until September 2013, Justice Canada held in-person and online consultations and finally Bill C-32 was introduced.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime actively participated in these consultations and provided a list of nine recommendations, most of which the government took into account.

My speech will focus on our concerns and what aspects of the bill we should examine together in committee.

The office made the following recommendations for a bill of rights: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limit opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or re-offend.

At first glance, the Canadian victims bill of rights takes into account most of these recommendations. However, there are a few that I am concerned about, and that I believe weaken this bill. As I mentioned a number of times, I hope that we will be able to work together as good parliamentarians should. The victims of our country are already fragile enough and we must give them all the help we can. That is how we will make progress.

The problem with this bill is that it does not provide for any financial assistance. We have heard that no one knows just how familiar victims will be with their rights. My colleague also talked about that. We do not know whether victims will be aware of what assistance they can request. We have to wonder whether support will fall to community groups.

I have an interesting statistic that shows that, right now, community groups provide the bulk of assistance to victims. The work is often done by volunteers. Groups that provide services to victims usually have employees, but they also have volunteers who provide assistance to victims. In 2011-12, 72% of victim service providers relied on volunteers.

I love volunteering and I think it is important, but I am not sure whether victims of crime should be dealing with volunteers. Should they not have access to someone with training in that field? It is not always easy to work with crime victims. They are dealing with a lot of feelings, emotions and an incredible amount of stress. It would be good for the bill of rights to provide for some funding to organizations that provide assistance to crime victims.

I have another concern about the money being allocated. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.

A victims bill of rights should, first and foremost, provide financial assistance. Costs borne by victims could be associated with transportation, communication or support, for example, when they need help getting to a particular location. A first step would be to help cover the costs associated with the consequences of being the victim of a crime.

Furthermore, according to the 2009 General Social Survey, 7.4 million Canadians reported being a victim of a criminal incident in the preceding 12 months. Since this bill affects one-quarter of Canadians, we must listen to them. I am sure that that the topic of costs came up during the consultations that were held.

According to that same survey, 47% of women over the age of 15 who said that they had been sexually assaulted by their spouse or a partner in the preceding 12 months said that they did not report the assault to police. It was sometimes out of shame, out of fear of retribution or out of fear that no one would believe them or that they would be blamed for what had happened. If nearly half of women who are victims of assault do not feel they can report it to police, out of shame or for other reasons, perhaps it is because we need to provide services to those women.

If women are ashamed to report that they are victims of a crime, we need to ask ourselves what can be done. The victims bill of rights will help victims who go to the police and take legal action, but we need to make sure that we have something to help the men, women and children who are afraid to go to the police. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any provisions to address that problem.

We are calling on the government to send this bill to committee. We want victims to have access to the support and services they need. That is of the utmost importance to us. That is how we can best address victims' needs. We acknowledge that, for many victims, being able to participate in sentencing and parole hearings is progress. However, as I said, there are elements in the bill that could be strengthened.

To conclude, I would like to quote Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime. On April 3, he said:

It’s a good bill, as far as it goes. I think the biggest problem though is that the minister of justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that.

He added:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

These days, it is all about keeping people informed. Without financial backing, it will be difficult to make sure that victims are well informed. The bill of rights should include provisions to ensure that victims get the support and help they need. The government says it is tough on crime, but when 50% of female victims of crime do not report the crime to the police, we have to ask ourselves some questions. We have to convince these women that there will be progress and that the police will take them seriously and be with them every step of the way as they deal with their very difficult situations.

I would like to reiterate that I will be proud to support this bill, but I hope that my Conservative colleagues will be able to work with us to improve the final version of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. Clearly, she knows what she is talking about. This goes to show how knowledgeable she is about issues that affect her community. She is doing extraordinary work in her riding.

Our party will definitely support this bill at second reading because it deserves to go to committee for further discussion. The bill does have some flaws that we need to talk about.

The Conservatives have been promising us this bill for years, but have not introduced it until now. They keep campaigning on empty promises and never come through with something we can read. They try to convince Canadians to support bills without telling them exactly what is in those bills. We are glad that they have finally put things down in black and white in this case.

Even though we have it in black and white now, it is still a mirage. The government introduced a bill that is supposed to help victims, but it is not giving them the means to use the tools that will be available to them. Moreover, as my colleague pointed out, because none of this will be advertised, victims will not even know what tools are available to them.

The tools will be in place, but unfortunately no one will know it. Furthermore, the victims will have a hard time using those tools.

What does my colleague think of the lack of funding in this bill?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he was here when we were talking about this bill and that he is also very interested in moving it forward.

I would like to read an excerpt from a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on April 3 that supports what my colleague is saying. Although this association supports this bill, it feels that “certain conditions must be met if this bill of rights is going to have real influence and not just make empty promises.”

That is kind of what my colleague was saying. When the government proposes a charter like the Canadian victims bill of rights, it has a responsibility to ensure that victims will be given all the psychological and financial support they need to move forward in the justice system.

It is important to give the justice system leverage, but the victims have to be at the heart of that approach and that is not the case at the moment. By providing victims with financial support, we would be putting them at the heart of these initiatives.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightfully noted that there is a general lack of funding. Community groups do very good work and are very generous, but their resources are limited. There is going to be a big problem.

Speaking of resources, this will take police training or legal training. Will the provinces or municipalities have to cover these costs through their police forces? The bill does not seem to provide funding for training, but I would think that funding is required.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

Police training is another expense that is passed onto the provinces by the federal government. In the time that I have been here, this seems to have become a vicious circle, or a bad habit. For example, criminal penalties continue to increase, but the provinces are not given the money to provide proper services to prisoners. The government says that this bill will help victims but, once again, it is not giving money to the provinces so that they can provide appropriate assistance.

I am certain that the police system acts in good faith and tries to help victims and to support them as they navigate the judicial system. That said, the government must provide the funding and the means to do just that. It was very important to include some money to that end in the bill.

However, I am sure that my Conservative colleagues who are carefully listening to us will accept some of our amendments in committee. I hope that I can convince them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-32, a bill on establishing a victims bill of rights for Canadians.

As New Democrats, we are certainly interested in the issues of the bill going forward. We are particularly interested in a number of provisions, including the widening of the definition of “victim” and the creation of a complaints mechanism for victims to file a complaint to a federal or provincial agency if they feel their rights under the charter had been denied.

I was looking at that particular provision this week when the survivors of St. Anne's Residential School were once again in the Ontario provincial court over the Conservative government's obstruction of a provincial court order calling on the federal government to release thousands of pages of police testimony regarding the crimes that were committed against the children at St. Anne's. When we talk about victims, I think it is important we say that, under the current government, there are two kinds of victims in this country, and unfortunately for first nations victims, their rights continue to be undermined.

Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, a legal agreement was put in place because Canada was found to be the defendant in thousands of cases of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against first nations residential school children.

Under the residential schools agreement, the independent assessment process was established. It was supposed to be non-adversarial to allow the victims of these horrific crimes to tell their story and be compensated. However, as the people of St. Anne's found out, this process was anything but non-adversarial. I will certainly be looking at Bill C-32 in terms of the complaints mechanism that needs to be in place for victims.

Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the Government of Canada's representatives from the Department of Justice played two roles. One role was to be the lawyer for the defendant, which was Canada, and so they were there to defend Canada's interests. However, they were also there to create the evidence narrative and provide the court hearings with all the evidence that the claimants needed. They told the claimants that they did not need to bring their lawyers. They just needed come and tell their stories. The evidence would be there, and they would look at it.

However, when the people from St. Anne's went into the hearings, they found that the federal government had prepared a false evidence narrative. The narrative was essentially a lie that was being presented at a legal hearing.

The narrative stated that there was no known documentation of sexual abuse at the Fort Albany Indian Residential School. The victims who came forward to tell their stories were being challenged day after day by Department of Justice lawyers who said that there was no evidence to back up their cases. Now, what the federal government did not tell the survivors, nor the adjudication process, was that it was sitting on thousands of pages of police testimony of the horrific crimes that were committed at St. Anne's.

In fact, in a 2003 affidavit, the federal government obtained this information from the Ontario Provincial Police, which identified 180 perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse, including the actual torture of children at St. Anne's, from 154 different plaintiffs. It also collected over 860 witness statements that verified the crimes.

Many of these criminal acts were not prosecuted in the Ontario court because many of the perpetrators had disappeared, could not be tracked down, or were dead. However, a number of criminal convictions did come forward. One of those criminal convictions is against Anna Wesley. Therefore, the federal government was aware of these horrific crimes and had the evidence.

In the 2003 affidavit by the Department of Justice to obtain this evidence, it told the Ontario provincial court at the time that it would be unfair for the defendant if its representation did not have access to this information. However, what was unfair for the defendant was considered perfectly fair for the survivors, the victims, who went in without this evidence.

Then, in the 2003 court ruling, the evidence was transferred to the federal government. The court said that future plaintiffs should also have access to the evidence. However, that did not happen.

The government lied to the survivors of St. Anne's and it lied to the independent assessment process. In 2012, as the process was going on with claimant after claimant being challenged over the fact that they had been put in homemade electric chairs for the amusement of the staff or forced to eat their vomit when they were sick, the federal government was saying that it had no evidence to back this up. However, the victims' lawyers found out that the government had this evidence and challenged it, but then the federal government said that it did not have to produce it.

The very federal legal institution that was there to protect the victims would define the independent assessment process. In July 2013, I wrote to the Indian Affairs minister and asked how it could be that the government would have produced a false evidence narrative and suppressed evidence in a legal hearing.

He wrote to me:

Canada is, of course, aware of the Ontario Provincial Police investigations regarding the St. Anne's...Residential School and resulting...trials.

But then he said that they had no legal obligation to seek out the documents. He did not say they were sitting on the documents, that they had the documents. He then said the evidence was not admissible.

This is what he said:

The statements made to the Ontario Provincial Police in the course of their investigation...cannot in Canada's view, be used as evidence in the Independent Assessment Process....only oral testimony of a witness is considered evidence.

That is not true. That is another falsehood. The terms of the IAP state, “Relevant findings in previous criminal or civil trials...may be accepted without further proof.”

He stated then that corroborative evidence does “not need to be submitted to corroborate the oral testimony of claimants”. This is one of the key elements because the independent assessment process actually states:

...the standard of proof is the standard used by the civil courts for matters of like seriousness. Although this means that as the alleged acts become more serious, adjudicators may require more cogent evidence before being satisfied that the Claimant has met their burden of proof....

The survivors who went into that process were lied to. They were told, “you don't need to produce evidence, just come and tell your story”, when it actually said if people are making serious allegations of criminal acts against children, they have to prove it. They sat, with all the access to the evidence, and told the survivors that they were making things up and that they had no evidence to back it up.

On January 14, 2014, this was heard at the Ontario Superior Court. Justice Perell stated that Canada had a legal duty to “search for, collect and provide a report” on the crimes that were committed against these children, and that “Canada's failure to produce OPP documents about St. Anne's compromised the IAP and denied the Claimants access to justice.”

This week, these same survivors were in court again because in spite of a provincial Superior Court ruling, they went back into the hearings and said they are not producing the evidence. The evidence on Anna Wesley and the crimes that she committed against children and the corroborating evidence that was used to convict her, they will not turn that evidence over. They said this to people whose only crimes were that they were first nation children.

The officials told the Ontario Superior Court they could not explain why they had produced a false evidence narrative. They did not know. It was maybe an accident, but that is not true. On July 26, 2013, after I wrote to the Indian Affairs minister, they began an internal rewrite of the narrative and it is called Amendments to St. Anne's Indian Residential School in response to the Member for Timmins—James Bay.

Think of that for a moment. The top legal system in this country, which is there to protect the interests of the law and the citizens of Canada, only started to create a clear evidence narrative after it was outed. Otherwise, it would have continued with the misrepresentation and falsehoods.

Edmund Metatawabin was in court again this week. Edmund is the spokesperson for the survivors. He has to fly down from Fort Albany on his own dime. He has been trying for years and years to get the government to work with him. Instead, all he has found is abuse. He wrote to the justice minister and said, “My god! We were just children, undergoing torture, abuse....the federal government was conspicuously absent and negligent to give us solace and protection” and “nothing has changed” in 2014.

I want to end by saying the government spends about $106 million a year in Indian Affairs fighting the rights of first nations people. That is almost double what it spends going after tax cheats or criminals. I would like to quote Doug Cuthand in the StarPhoenix. He said:

The federal government has adopted an expensive, two-pronged legal strategy....it conducts a scorched earth legal strategy that drags out cases and starves First Nations organizations of funds.... Sitting down for honest negotiations is simply not a part of the government's strategy.

The Conservatives made an apology to Canadians and they undermined that apology. They see only two kinds of victims and first nation victims are never part of their narrative.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a truly impassioned speech. It revealed a lot that I think Canadians do not want to hear, because I am sure they could not believe our government is capable of this kind of lawyering.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that the time might have come for some of kind of task force on the ethics and professional responsibility of the federal government's lawyers.

I am thinking about the residential schools case that we just heard described. I am thinking about the role of government lawyers in the Afghan detainee situation before the Military Police Complaints Commission. I am thinking of the current Privacy Commissioner, who argued before the committee against torture at the UN, under the Liberal government, that people could be deported to a substantial risk of torture if they were serious criminals. I am thinking of the farce of the constitutional compliance review that supposedly goes on in the Department of Justice, which we now know does not. Lawyers should not simply be mouthpieces for unconstitutional and otherwise unethical government policy.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that it is high time for a task force to look into this situation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for my hon. colleague and I think his question on a task force is very important.

The lawyers for the Department of Justice went into those hearings and lied and produced evidence that was a lie and suppressed evidence. If that was in a normal criminal proceeding, people's licences would be taken away and the cases would be thrown out, but in the case of the independent assessment process, the position of the courts and apparently of the independent assessment process is “Oh, well; we got caught. Life carries on.”

As Edmund Metatawabin said, they were poisonous in their treatment of people whose only crime was that they were children, first nations children, who were taken away from their families.

Then they went back into the hearings and acted in defiance of an Ontario Superior Court ruling. They acted in defiance of the basic laws of this land, in terms of the obligation for disclosure and the obligation for the federal government to uphold the so-called honour of the crown by producing evidence that is not fraudulent, and they think that this can carry on.

I agree with my hon. colleague. Something must be done.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question, it is a comment.

I am completely disgusted by what I have just heard and by the hypocrisy of a government that, on the one hand, says it wants to protect victims with a bill and, on the other hand, does these types of things. The big brother of the MP next to me, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, died in one of those schools. His mother found out by chance several years later. The family had no idea of what had happened.

Therefore, it is appalling that one part of the population is being protected but that another large part is not. I am thinking of all the aboriginal people and the missing and murdered women for whom they do not even want to set up an inquiry. That is hypocritical.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians saw that historic moment of the apology and thought that things would change. We took our government at its word.

Then we think of the disappeared women. Shannon Alexander and Maisy Odjick, two young students with top marks, walked out of their home one day in Kitigan Zibi and were never seen again, and nobody ever seemed to go looking.

I saw the family, a year later, putting up posters. Is there supposed to be an inquiry? Hell, yes, there needs to be an inquiry, yet we saw the justice minister take all the supposed documents about these women, their lives and what happened, and throw them on the floor of the House of Commons. Then the Conservatives stand up and talk about victims. They stand and want their pictures taken with the so-called victims, but they would not stand outside on the House of Commons grounds when the mothers, the daughters, and the sisters stood out there.

It is a crime. It is a crime against the larger humanness of the government and the country when the Conservatives relegate a section of our population to worthlessness and say they do not count and that they can abuse them and take away their rights. They can go into a legal process in 2014, lie in court, and say, “We're the Government of Canada. We will lie if we want to.”

That is not acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak about the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I will begin by providing a brief summary of the bill. It codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution in the justice system. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to incorporate some of those rights.

Everyone here will agree that we need to protect victims of crime and that victims have rights. However, the government's attitude is rather hypocritical. A bill of rights is a good idea. However, we know what the Conservatives think about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example. Day after day, they continue to introduce bills that turn out to be unconstitutional. It is therefore all well and good to introduce a Canadian victims bill of rights, but no funding is being allocated for this bill of rights, no programs are being developed and no plan is being made to enforce these rights.

Yes, the government is recognizing that victims have rights. That is a good start. However, the government is going to once again ask the provinces to spend money and implement the appropriate mechanism to support federal policies. Once again, the government is going to take credit for a bill, but it is not going to allocate the necessary resources or implement the necessary measures; it is going to put that burden on the provinces.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives consulted with their provincial counterparts to ask them whether their justice systems could accommodate this type of measure. Obviously we know that there are problems with delays in the justice system. These delays are the most difficult thing for victims. For years and years, they are re-victimized whenever they have to appear in court and then are told that they will have to come back again later.

Reducing delays is a priority for victims. I can testify to that because I met with people who, unfortunately, had to wait for years to obtain justice. What is more, they did not even get the help they needed because the waiting lists are too long. There are not enough resources, and victims are left to fend for themselves.

Of course, victims have rights. I have met many victims, and that is obvious. I am sure that everyone agrees; however, there are some concerns. For example, as I said, the federal government held consultations and many recommendations were made. I will share some. For one, there was a recommendation for integrated, accessible, simple resources and services with minimum standards across the country. Unfortunately, the government did not follow that recommendation. Victims are also asking for equitable, respectful and individualized rights, a voice and standing in the justice system. There is a major problem here, because none of the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to uphold and apply those rights. Rights are being granted, but there is no funding, no program, no plan and no obligation. Nothing is being provided.

This is basically all smoke and mirrors. With all due respect for the Conservatives, they may have had good intentions in proposing that we adopt this bill; however, they are just using victims as political leverage. That much is clear. It is a political calculation. They used victims, as they always do.

Whether it is children or victims of cyberbullying, they are using victims to try and get their legislation passed and benefit politically. Anthony Moustacalis, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said that the majority of the measures in the bill are already being practised in courts of law. I will quote him:

Were it serious about aiding victims, the government could ensure that Criminal Injury Compensation Boards have sufficient funding to act as a genuine source of relief. It would also ensure that those victims who require counseling are able to obtain it.

That is the crux of the issue right there. It is all well and good to recognize rights, but ensuring they are respected is a whole other story.

Bill C-32 was introduced few months ago and is still at second reading. The government did not send it to committee to be studied. It consulted people, but we do not even know whether it consulted its provincial counterparts. It still has not sent the bill to committee, and we still have not heard from experts. Nothing has been done. This is the first time I have spoken to the bill we are discussing. If the government truly cared about the interests of victims, why did it not include legal obligations for people who work in the justice system in the bill?

What is the point of creating rights if they unfortunately become obsolete when they do not apply in certain cases? I have read this bill. The Conservatives will try to say that I have not read it, but I have read it many times. The rights are conditional. I do not have the bill here in front of me, but I could point out the clauses. The rights are conditional in some circumstances.

I understand that the government is trying to score as many political points as it can. This bill is nothing but a charade that recognizes victims' rights but does nothing to ensure that these rights—which are conditional, I must point out—are enforced.

I want to mention that even the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime said that the bill of rights does not cover everything that victims think it should. The bill of rights is certainly an important and historic change for victims, and I will give the government that. The bill of rights acknowledges the role that victims must play, and it attempts to address their needs for information, consideration and protection. However, the ombudsman said that she had examined the bill of rights carefully and noted that many of the recommendations had been incorporated, but not all of them.

If victims are so important to the Conservatives, then why not invest the necessary resources in the program? Why not try to improve access to justice? Why not try to give the justice system the resources it needs to eliminate waiting times? I will say it again: the key elements are resources and waiting times. The longer victims wait, the more likely they are to be revictimized. The Conservatives recognized their rights, and that is great, but will the government ensure that victims can exercise those rights within the justice system? It has to make it possible for them to do that, cut waiting times and give everyone in the justice system the resources to ensure that victims' rights are honoured and that justice is done.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how she feels about the fact that the Conservatives are standing up to say they are protecting victims, but when it comes to protecting aboriginal women, they are failing. When it comes to protecting military women, who are subject to five assaults a day in the armed forces, and when it comes to protecting women in the RCMP, they are failing dismally.

I would like her to comment on the fact that they failed dismally on the very issues where they could have taken action.

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

Mr. Speaker, to ask the question is to answer it.

My colleague was clear. As I said, the Conservatives are all about the smoke and mirrors. However, when the time comes to do the work and walk the talk, the Conservatives are not in the game. They are nowhere to be found.

I just want to point out that, since the start of this debate, not a single Conservative has participated by asking us questions or talking about victims' rights. That is proof of their double standard. They do photo ops and they pretend to care about victims, but since debate on this bill began, I have not seen a single Conservative stand up to speak for the rights of victims, aboriginal women and victims of bullying. They are not the ones standing up in the House.

I see my colleague rising to ask me a question. I am looking forward to this.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

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

Excuse me; the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record, you will see that you already gave the floor to the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All hon. members know that there is a standard rotation in the chamber. I did not see the hon. parliamentary secretary on his feet for a question. There is no rule that once something has been said the Speaker does not have the right to retract it.

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

Mr. Speaker, that may be so, but you had already given the floor to the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I would ask you to look at the record to see whether he already had the floor. I do not see anywhere in the bylaws that there is any reason to take the floor away from him.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

During the request for questions and comments, it would have been a government member's turn. I had not seen this hon. member. I had started to call the name of another hon. member when the other hon. member brought to my attention that it was in fact his turn.

The Chair will review the tape to see if there is a need to come back to clarify this. At this point, the floor goes to the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

She was lamenting the fact that the government has not sent this bill to committee in order to hear from experts. It is very important to hear the opinions and comments of experts from across the country. That is why we do not want to add to her filibuster on this bill. It is very important for this bill to get to committee.

Perhaps the hon. member could explain why the NDP wants to have this filibuster. This is going to delay the arrival of witnesses and experts who will add their views to this important debate to improve things for victims in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I have not had the time to look up the definition of filibuster. This is the first time I have spoken to this bill in the House of Commons. I do have the right to speak freely and democratically to a bill.

I quite like my colleague and I am sure that he does very good work as a member of Parliament, but I am entitled to speak to a bill for the first time in the House of Commons.

I look forward to studying this bill in committee. However, before it is sent there, a number of members in the House have to be given the chance to debate and talk about the bill of rights on behalf of their constituents. It would be nice if a Conservative could do the same on behalf of their constituents as well.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the member for Scarborough Centre, one of the greatest fans of demagoguery in the House, will ask a question at some point in this debate.

As usual, we see that this bill is a symbolic gesture by the government. It is not a substantive bill. This is obvious from the evidence given by the mother of a young girl who was murdered. The mother told us that the changes proposed by the government would only fuel the desire for revenge. From a psychological point of view, it does not help victims go through the healing process.

Could my colleague comment on and tell us more about why this bill will not help victims and about the fact that this is instead a symbolic gesture?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think I was really clear in my speech.

The biggest problems in the current justice system are access to justice and wait times. The longer victims wait in the justice system, the more they are victimized each time, and the longer they are victimized, the more difficult it will be to start the healing process.

I would like to repeat for my colleague what Manitoba's Attorney General said:

We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it. [I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable — like Manitoba's support services office — then it is an empty gesture.

His remarks were echoed by the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. We have to give resources to the people on the ground and help them implement the rights. It is well and good to talk about rights. However, we have to do what it takes to ensure that these rights are enforced.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would like to clarify the point of order raised by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

In fact, I have confirmed that when the House goes to questions and comments, it is at the discretion of the Chair as to who has the floor. As all hon. members will know, there is a standard rotation in this place that is followed as much as possible by the Chair. There are times when the Chair does not see a member rise, often in the corners or at the far end of the chamber, but the Chair is entirely within the right, after he has started to say a name or in fact has completed saying a name, to realize that it should have been another member. The Chair can at that point redirect the floor to the member in the rotation. In this case, particularly given that the hon. member who had the floor had stated in her speech that she wanted to receive a question from a government member, that was also part of my justification at that point.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.

I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.

To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:

Just words, always words...
Nothing but words
Words, words, words

That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.

For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.

Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.

For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.

Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone.

Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.

At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.

We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims' rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.

Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.

A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.

I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or monies that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.

I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.

We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.

I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.

The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.

It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.

Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.

Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:

I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that

He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a 2009 social survey, approximately 7.4 million Canadians—a little more than one quarter of the population—aged 15 and older were victims of crime.

I am going to ask these questions because I am very worried. One quarter of the population has been victimized by crime. In our society, we say that we are open-minded, we have crime prevention measures and we help people. We also put criminals in jail. Then, how is it that one quarter of our population is in this situation? Do we do enough prevention? Does the government's bill provide for a system to ensure that people commit fewer crimes?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would like to thank the hon. member for asking it.

The Conservative government always focuses on punishment, not prevention. Prevention can take many forms, such as education and training or tackling poverty, establishing a national mental health strategy or implementing various measures that would create better socio-economic conditions and allow people to live a dignified, decent life. That will reduce the chances that they will choose a life of crime. We know that living conditions are directly linked to criminality.

The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said that it is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but that doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime. We also need to be proactive so that they do not find themselves in criminal situations. The government needs to take a much more nuanced and balanced position by recognizing people's social rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He worked very hard, as we can see by the quality of his speech. He works extremely hard in his riding and that shows in the good things his constituents have to say about him. I commend him on that.

In his speech he mentioned that there is a lack of resources, money and means to help people exercise the rights proposed in this bill. I would go even further. The Conservatives have been campaigning on this famous bill of rights for eight years. It was a ghost, a mirage, a cloud, but nothing tangible. Finally, things are in black and white.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have repeatedly proposed measures in public without putting anything down on paper. That is something we see far too often.

I would like my colleague to explain why it took so long for the bill to be introduced. Again, it contains some serious flaws. What seems to be missing from the Conservatives' consultation process?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and also congratulate her on the work she does in her riding, which is appreciated just as much, if not more, than my own.

The government dragged its feet on this bill for the same reason it did so with the firearms registry. It wants to please the Conservative voter base, which likes hearing this type of rhetoric. As long as the problem is not solved, the government can continue to say that it cares about the problem and is going to do something about it.

In this case, the government really drew out the debate for purely electoral and partisan reasons without ever really making victims' rights a priority.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 13 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.

Victims Bill of Rights

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their customary support. Today, I am pleased to be speaking to An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I should point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading. That said, we are not giving the government a blank cheque, that is for sure. We are supporting this bill so that it can be studied properly in committee and so that we can hear from experts, witnesses and perhaps even victims. We want to amend this less-than-perfect bill. We will support it so that we can work together to improve the situation.

We clearly want to provide victims of crime with tangible support. However, for that to happen, we need to be sure that this bill of rights is not just empty rhetoric. I personally have never been a victim of crime, but I can put myself in a victim's shoes. I know it would not be fun.

A responsible government that promises such measures to victims of crime—people who have gone through difficult experiences—should implement those measures properly, by listening to experts. People on the front lines also need to be able to implement them.

I should also point out that we have been waiting for the government to do something about this for eight years. I say “we”, but of course I mean that victims, too, have been waiting for the government to do something. The government promised in 2006 to give us this bill of rights. Why did victims have to wait eight years? For that whole time, they have not had these tools, they have not had any help coping. It is appalling that they were made to wait so long.

Ministers held press conferences and photo ops and promised all kinds of things, but they never actually did anything. Now we have something, but as I said earlier, we really have to make sure that this is not just pie in the sky and that it will really be done. In the meantime, victims are still waiting. The government cannot keep human beings waiting so long when these are such serious and sensitive issues.

Another problem with this bill is that it creates no legal obligation for people working in the justice system to implement the rights that are being given to victims. The government is setting up a system, but it is not making sure that anything will really happen and has told us nothing about how it is supposed to happen. Will this law just gather dust while they talk about how we have a bill of rights? That is what I am afraid of. I wonder about that.

Does the government really care about victims, or did it just introduce this bill to look good? We will find out what the government's real intentions are when we look at this bill in committee. Will the government not just hear from experts but really listen to them? Will it take all of this into consideration? I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I sure am looking forward to finding out what it is going to do with all this.

I would like to talk about some of the highlights of Bill C-32. First, it broadens the definition of “victim” to include individuals who have suffered property damage, physical or emotional harm or economic loss. It also clarifies the fact that the spouse of a victim can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf if the conjugal relationship has lasted for at least one year, of course.

It is still a good improvement and it is important that it be implemented.

The bill also changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release, because his appearance may have changed, for example.

It can be difficult for victims to know that their attacker is free to walk the streets when they do not know what he looks like or where he has ended up. The bill also allows victims to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.

In my opinion, victims have a right to this information, and this really must be implemented and enforced.

The bill also makes this interesting improvement:

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.

Bill C-32 also creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated. Here again, we see that there is no legal obligation for stakeholders to put all this in place. Will this really be done and will victims really be able to file complaints with departments without having to fill out a ton of paperwork and take serious legal action?

We know that victims of crime are sometimes vulnerable and have difficulty coping with the situation. Will the government really help these people to do what needs to be done? I look forward to seeing that happen.

Finally, the bill also codifies the right to make a restitution order and specifies that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed.

I would like the government to specify what constitutes a “reasonable time”. I know it is a small detail. However, it is not a small thing for victims because a reasonable period of time could be two years, five years or even six months. I think it is important for victims to have that information.

In any case, we can hardly say no to this bill. We support it because victims need a bill of rights to protect them. However, we question some aspects of the bill. The necessary resources for implementing these measures have not been included in the bill, and I want to see those. I want to see how the government is going to implement this bill, who is going to work on it and how. That is what we need to see in this bill.

We are going to hear from experts in committee, and I truly hope that the government will consider what they have to say because, unlike us, they work in the field. We will see whether the government is open to real consultation or whether it plans on imposing a bill unilaterally and without consultation, just to look good. We will also see whether this bill really meets the needs identified by experts and victims.

I will gladly answer any questions.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her very fine speech.

She says she more or less trusts the government when it comes to implementing this bill. This is 2014 and we know there is an election coming up in 2015.

Does my colleague think this is essentially a ploy to make the Conservatives look good because they are trying to protect victims' rights, when in reality nothing will be done before the election?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question.

My biggest concern about this bill is that the measures on paper will not materialize. That is often what the government ends up doing.

Does the government want to draft a bill, print it and put it on a shelf and then, in 2015, say there is a victims bill of rights and target vulnerable people in that way? I do not know whether that is the intention. If so, I find that especially underhanded. I want this bill to be put into action. I think it is important that this bill be truly implemented.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague some questions.

Does she think that this bill of rights is based more on the legal process or on the legal aspects of victimization? Have the psychological ramifications of being a victim of crime been sufficiently examined for this bill and when developing the bill of rights?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague for her questions.

In my opinion, during consultations, people often forget to consider the psychological impact on those who have had experiences that are often incredibly difficult. As I said earlier, I have never been a victim of crime and therefore I am not really in a position to say more.

That said, it is important to consult these people when the opportunity arises. Not only must we listen to them, but we must also hear what they are saying. We have to really consider what they have to say and what they have experienced.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that it would have been useful to have had more consultations in order to determine how to help people deal with their experiences? How does she think that we could explore this aspect of the bill of rights when we study it in committee?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee will hear primarily from legal experts. It would be informative to also hear from victims, if they are up to it, of course. That may not be the case, which is perfectly understandable. However, we could hear from psychologists, social workers or people working on the ground who are familiar with what victims go through. It would be interesting.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I would like to point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading because we feel it should be studied at committee. However, we are definitely not giving the government a blank cheque. I do not think we should conclude consideration in committee until experts have spoken to us about specific aspects of the bill. That is why we feel very strongly about it going to committee. I sincerely hope that, for the victims' sake, we will take the time to conduct an in-depth study at committee and that the committee will be open to the potential amendments put forward by the opposition. I hope that we will take the time to do a non-partisan study. I think that it is particularly important, when talking about victims, not to be excessively partisan.

One thing disappoints me. The Conservatives have been talking about being tough on crime since they formed a minority government in 2006. They have consistently increased penalties for crimes, imposed minimum sentences and talked about victims. However, it was not until 2014 that they decided to introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights, when they could have done it at any point since 2006. I feel it is particularly disappointing to see that they have waited until their mandate is almost up to decide to work on this issue.

Since the government came to power, it has proposed increasingly severe legislation, as though the only thing victims want is harsher punishment for those who commit crimes. With respect to victims, I do not think that the various aspects were fully explored.

To begin, many of those aspects are not of a legal nature. They are related to the process and how we should be treating victims and listening to them. One of the first things that comes to mind is the whole process of revictimization or investigation.

Let us take a case of sexual assault as an example. Someone has been victimized in a very intimate way. As part of the legal process and obtaining evidence of the assault, the person undergoes an examination at the hospital. There is a kit for sexual assault, for rape.

I am a nurse. I have worked in emergency and intensive care. I was trained to use this kit. It is not much fun. When a person is raped, we have to look for physical, material evidence. To convict the rapist, we have to invade the victim's body when she is still in a very vulnerable psychological state. When we use the rape kit, we are kind of victimizing the victim all over again. Everyone understands that it is part of the legal process, but it is not easy to do.

For the Canadian victims bill of rights, we have to make sure there is money so that the people using these kits are properly trained and have the tools they need to help people in such sad situations.

There is something else that is not covered by the Canadian victims bill of rights: the right to be heard, believed and listened to. Often during the investigation, whether the crime was serious or not, people ask questions that can be a little biased. The victim might get the feeling that nobody believes her, that they think she is responsible for what happened, that she is being accused of making excuses or making things up. That is a very hard thing to go through for a victim who experienced a traumatizing event and found the courage to talk about it. For example, from the way the investigator asks questions, the victim might get the feeling that the investigator is practically accusing her of making the whole story up.

That can be unbearable for a victim. The bill of rights does not touch on the right to be listened to and believed, and that is a shame. That is exactly the psychological aspect I was talking about in the questions I asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

This bill of rights is very closely tied to the legal process. In some cases, there is no trial because the guilty party is never found. In many rape cases, the rapist is never found. If no charges are laid, the victim is not considered a victim in the eyes of the law because it cannot be proven that a crime took place if there is no trial. There can be obvious signs of rape on the woman's body, but if there is neither a trial nor a conviction, she is not considered to be a victim of crime.

In the case of other victims, the offender may be found, but lack of evidence may prevent the victim's case from going before the courts. These women will not be considered victims, even if a crime is committed against them and they are traumatized. The victims bill of rights will not apply to them because there was not enough evidence to take their case to court.

In other cases where a trial does take place, the criminal may be acquitted for different reasons. I will not go into all the details, but the victim is not considered a victim even though she has suffered psychological trauma. She lives with the impact of the crime day in and day out. That is also not recognized by the victims bill of rights.

There are other situations where people are not identified as victims. I am talking about cases where the attacker dies, for example as part of a family tragedy. The father kills his children and then kills himself. He will obviously not be tried in court, and thus the victim will not be considered a victim under the bill of rights. That is very unfortunate.

When the bill to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights is studied in committee, I recommend that the government take the time to talk to victims. I would like the government to step out of the legal realm and examine the possibility of giving rights to victims who will not be considered victims. I am talking about victims who do not press charges and whose attackers will not be incarcerated for the various reasons that I mentioned. Could they be included?

I hope that in committee we will take the time to listen to leaders of community organizations and health professionals who work with victims of crime in order to determine a holistic approach to helping victims. The bill of rights should recognize that victims have the right to be heard instead of just being linked to a judicial process.

There will still be a lot of work to be done when the bill is studied in committee, and we will do it. I sincerely hope that the Conservative government will take the time to do a thorough job.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very precise speech. She really analyzed this bill.

She said one thing that really struck me, which was that more extensive consultation was needed throughout the process. She started describing how she envisioned this broader consultation, which would make the bill of rights more inclusive of victims.

Could she tell us a bit more about the study in committee and how she envisions support for victims?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during its study, the committee will have to hear from front-line and second-line health care professionals. In many cases, these professionals respond to emergencies when the victims show up, whether they are victims of assaults or car accidents. The situations vary.

We need these front-line workers and police officers to tell us about how they respond to these individuals. We need to hear what it is really like for them, for example, when a mother comes out of her house in tears and clutches them in her arms. You have to know what to do, and you have to ensure that these people have rights and that they get the support they need. I think that is worthwhile.

I also think it would be worthwhile for the committee to hear from victims, if they feel able to testify. I am thinking in particular of victims whose case did not go to trial, for various reasons that I have already mentioned. Perhaps the person who committed the crime is dead, either because he committed suicide after committing the crime or because he died when the police attempted to arrest him. There are also cases where the person who committed the crime was never found or where the victim was told that their story seemed truthful, but that there was not enough evidence to lay charges.

I would like these people to have an opportunity to share their thoughts and to talk about their experiences so that we can take them into account. We need to ensure that the victims bill of rights applies to all victims and not just those who fit the definitions in a very specific bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her very enlightening remarks.

I will be speaking about this bill later, and I must admit that I have mixed feelings on this topic. I feel hopeful, skeptical and perhaps even a bit of afraid of becoming disillusioned.

For eight years, the Conservative government has been bragging that it is the champion of victims. We saw it during photos ops and at press conferences. Although this bill does contain some good policy that I will of course support, it seems that there is still a huge gap between the stated objectives and the methods that will be used to attain them.

I would like to know whether my colleague shares my view and whether she too is worried that this will set victims up for disappointment?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer my colleague's question is to quote the words of a mother whose child was murdered. Members may have seen her on CBC news on April 3, 2014. Her name is Lori Triano-Antidormi, and she expressed some doubts about how effective this bill will be.

According to Lori Triano-Antidormi, this bill could create false hope for victims. This woman is a victim of crime, but as a psychologist, she also helps people to cope with situations like the one she experienced. This is what she said:

My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system. Right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. The crown has the final say. If the government were to make that change, it would only fuel vengeance in the victim which from a physiological perspective doesn't help their healing or recovery.

In many cases, victims are more concerned about knowing that the person who committed the offence understands the pain and suffering he caused, than they are about the sentence the offender receives. However, no justice system can guarantee that. The offender may be sentenced to 25 years in prison rather than 15, but if he continues to dig in his heels, remain in his shell and fail to understand the harm he caused, what purpose does that serve?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts is an attempt—again, an attempt—to provide better support to victims. I am not a lawyer or a health specialist. Also, Mr. Speaker, allow me to stick to the principles. You will understand why a little later.

Support for victims should not be combined with revenge or vengeance. The judicial process is not just centred around the relationship between victim and criminal. I understand that there needs to be more room for victims in the judicial process, but settling for just that would be like having a body with no arms or legs. It is only part of the equation.

In fact, in my opinion, a victims bill must also support people who need assistance. That is the best thing we can do. We must take a holistic approach to supporting the victim. This bill, however, is only one piece of the puzzle.

Helping victims takes more than just using rhetoric to score political points, to look good, to have a photo op. That is not it at all. We must stop putting victims in the spotlight, in front of the cameras, and make room for people who need help in a process that, I repeat, is always painful. It is not a question of using fine words, but of taking action.

To cite a few examples to support that, on April 3, the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said:

It is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime.

This example from the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes alone illustrates the holistic approach I was talking about earlier.

I could also quote Sheldon Kennedy, the famous hockey player. He said:

[this is about] the process of trying to be better at the way we handle victims, not only through the court process, but really understanding the damage that happens to victims.

He also talked about how we could assist victims to overcome their pain and, if possible, helping them return to a healthy, normal life.

I want to share a quote from Andrew Swan, the Attorney General of Manitoba. He said this:

We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it.

That is how it seems, but anyway.

[I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable—like Manitoba's support services office—then it is an empty gesture.

The point is that it is important to support victims throughout the legal process and to provide better assistance, but some thought also needs to be put into this. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke about this in her speech. We need to support victims throughout a process that, we must admit, is a painful one. There is nothing pleasant about the process. What we are saying is that we should not make things worse; the focus should be on healing. That is what is important, and it is a huge part of this.

I am surprised that after all these years of talking about support for victims, the government did not give more consideration to how to provide support for victims outside the legal process. It has not gotten any further than that. My colleagues mentioned some necessary improvements with respect to support during the legal process.

I do not understand why the government has not assessed the issue of victim support more thoroughly after spending all these years talking about it.

Let us not forget that the federal government and the provinces, its key partners when it comes to justice issues, share jurisdiction on this. Everybody has to move in the same direction, meaning the federal and provincial governments have to take a collective and collaborative approach to supporting victims. I hope that the minister will address the issue from that perspective. If not, we will see a political party's agenda instead of a real political will to support victims.

Moreover, the consultation has to be as broad as possible. We must not go too fast; we need to get it right. It is important to allow everybody—victims, experts, health care professionals and the general public—to participate in this discussion, which will lead to a better framework for victim support.

If the government is willing to hold this broad consultation, this Parliament will have accomplished something noble. This is not a purely partisan debate where we and the government are on opposite sides. Fundamentally, the goal is to find out how we can best support people who have gone through a traumatic experience. That is the crux of the matter. Do we really want to work together to help these people in the best possible way?

I ask the government to consider conducting this broad consultation, so we can hear everyone with something to say and use their comments to improve the bill. The committee stage would be a good time to conduct the consultation and transform this first draft into legislation that really benefits victims. It is of the utmost importance.

When it comes to supporting people, principles are not enough. We need to invest money eventually. We cannot promise to help people and offer only goodwill. A number of volunteer organizations support these victims. We need to support the groups that offer support. It will take money to make things happen.

I would also like to see a commitment spelling out how we are planning to help these people. Would that be possible? How can we support this measure? That is key. If we do not spell out how the support and collaboration will occur, we will never reach a viable solution, and victims need viable solutions.

In closing, I think that the government and, by extension, this Parliament, has no right to disappoint victims with a faulty bill. We will support the bill at second reading because it really needs improvement. Despite what we have seen these past years, our side remains optimistic. We hope that we can all work together to improve this bill, for the benefit of victims.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.

I must say that I am having a harder time than he is being optimistic about all of this. He will know why once I ask him this question, even though I know he is not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, but maybe between the two of us we can figure this out.

When reading Bill C-32, as it now stands, it is clear that the justice system is not legally obligated to uphold the various rules in the bill of rights. That is why my optimism is somewhat muted. There should at least be some sort of basic minimum. I have a feeling that all of the witnesses we will hear from in committee will talk about the fact that there should be a clause like that in the bill. After eight years of working on this, it is still not there.

Does he feel that, once again, the Conservatives are creating false hope with these ideas that will not be enforced on a daily basis?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his question. His comments are always spot on.

We have no right to make victims cynical about this whole political process. We simply do not have that right. Each one of us wants a better support framework for victims. That is what everyone wants. We just cannot agree on how to do that.

The government has often talked about victims, and the members on this side of the House agree that we should be offering them better support. As I said in my speech, I think that this bill is just a starting point. We need to change this bill by listening to the needs of each and every victim and taking advantage of our desire to truly help them. If we do not take that approach, if we are short-sighted and choose to ignore entire parts of the solution, then the hon. member for Trois-Rivières will, unfortunately, be right. However, in this case, I hope he will be proven wrong.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I say trepidation because I have an unlimited respect and admiration for the resilience of victims of crime. That is why we, as Canadian parliamentarians, do not have the right to mess things up by making victims believe or hope for options that the law would not offer them.

I have to say at the outset that I will support this bill at second reading so that it can be considered in committee, where numerous experts who are much more qualified than I am will give us their insight. We will then be able to improve this bill, which, by many accounts, already has flaws that we must address before it becomes law. It would indeed be embarrassing to pass Bill C-32 only to see it fail to reach its goals.

I must admit that the Conservatives' strategy makes me uneasy. It took them eight years to put forward such a flawed proposal, but, during all that time, they tried to score political points by holding press conferences and photo ops.

The NDP, however, has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims' groups and specialists to determine how to really help victims. If creating a victims bill of rights is indeed the right approach, and if it is to be more than simple lip service, then it must be properly backed up with the resources it needs. At this point in the debate, Bill C-32 still makes no mention of funding. The devil may be in the details, but it seems to me that resources are more than mere details. I am legitimately concerned that the bill will be just for show, a simple list of principles, rather than the outcome of a genuine desire to support victims.

A good number of people who work with victims share my concerns. Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, has accused the Minister of Justice of not living up to his promises. In a CBC interview on April 3, he said that the bill itself was fine, the main problem being that the Minister of Justice had failed to live up to his promise to put victims at the heart of the justice system. He expressed some concern that many victims would only read the headlines rather than taking the time to read the actual bill, which would lead them to believe that the system has fundamentally changed when in fact it has not.

We are just as concerned as Mr. Sullivan is, and we will do everything we can so that the bill achieves the stated goals.

I could quote dozens of other people who worry that, as it is now, Bill C-32 does not seem able to meet expectations.

Our job and main objective in committee will be to make sure that the Canadian victims bill of rights fits into the Canadian judicial system, meets victims' expectations and responds to the recommendations they made.

For the people who are watching us, I would like to summarize the recommendations in nine simple and easy-to-understand points: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limited opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or reoffend.

I agree this is an ambitious agenda. At first glance, we must recognize that the proposed bill of rights meets some of these requirements. For example, it broadens the definition of a crime victim and it codifies the right of victims to information, protection, participation and restitution.

However, this bill of rights does not create legal obligations for other stakeholders in the judicial system. It simply provides access to a vague mechanism to file complaints with various federal departments, agencies and organizations that have a role to play in the justice system when victims' rights are infringed.

As with many other Conservative bills, this bill seems to lack the means to fulfill its ambitions. It seems that no specific funds have yet been allocated to implement these complaint mechanisms or help out the provinces. The bill of rights also contains limitation clauses stipulating that the proposed rights have to be exercised in a reasonable way.

“Reasonable”, that is the kind of weasel wording that causes confusion and that, unfortunately, is a trademark of the Conservatives. They used the same kind of wording in other bills. I could, for instance, mention the concept of “suitable employment”, which creates a major headache in the implementation of the new employment insurance system. The Conservatives seem to be masters at including deliberately undefined and confusing weasel words allowing the government to renege on its commitments as soon as things heat up.

This is why we hope that the bill will be thoroughly studied, clause by clause, in committee under the eyes of experts who are much more qualified than your humble servant. I will support this bill at second reading mostly so that we can study it thoroughly.

We sincerely hope that partisanship will give way to an effective and determined effort to seek the best solutions possible so that we can offer victims more than hope, namely the means to take action and the resources to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I had promised to follow up on some testimonies from people who expressed their concerns about Bill C-32. I am therefore keeping my promise so that we can be prepared to find answers for the issues we are considering in committee.

I would like to quote Mrs. Lori Triano-Antidormi, the mother of a murder victim and psychologist. While going through her own tragedy, she helps other victims overcome hardships. Here is what she told us: “This bill will create false hopes for victims.” Let us hope that we will be able to allay her fears about that.

The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes also welcomes the bill. The Association points out, however, that the bill of rights will be effective only if the mechanisms giving the victims recourse when their rights have been infringed upon are truly accessible, and if we allocate the resources to make that happen.

A more scathing comment came from Mr. Frank Addario, a criminal lawyer. He said:

The Conservative government's agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect.

As you can see, these quotes show a wide range of perspectives. While everyone wants to give the government the benefit of the doubt, hoping that the bill will materialize and really meet the expectations that it created, there is also some degree of skepticism and concern. These three examples really highlight the challenge we are facing and the government's responsibility to be open and responsive to suggestions at the committee stage.

If the past is any indication, it does not bode well, as the Conservatives have often proven unreceptive, even closed-minded, when their proposals or methods have come into question.

I sincerely hope that, when it comes to Bill C-32, our empathy for the victims' tragedies will bring us together as compassionate human beings, rather than divide us into different camps based on our party's colours.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his very humanistic approach.

The government dragged its feet for eight years before providing victims with the meaningful measures we have all been waiting for. However, right now, we are working on a bill that has plenty of flaws, especially with regard to financial support for victims. We know that victims still have to pay 83% of costs. Therefore, this is doublespeak. The government does not really provide any financial help. Also, its proposed bill of rights does not include a legal process to ensure that victims' complaints are taken into account.

What does my colleague think about that? What should the government do to really improve this proposed victims bill of rights?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I could easily have gone into a full-scale attack on the preliminary steps that led to the second reading vote, but I chose not to do so because, of all bills, this is certainly one that should be considered without any partisanship. We can criticize them for taking eight years, but the fact is that the bill is now before us.

My self-restraint comes from the hope that government members will show the same open attitude that would help us work together and send a positive message not only to victims, but also to all Canadians, who are fed up with the way parliamentarians work. It is in our best interests to send a positive message and show that we are able to solve problems when we work together.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There will be three minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the issue raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 18, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions among the parties. I am pleased to report that I believe you will find consent for the following motion:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 15, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:11 p.m.)