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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-32. Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in Amendment

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

(seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour) moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present deletions to Bill C-32, the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I and the Green Party support, in general, this important piece of legislation, but with some hesitations about its weaker parts.

Given the damage that the current government has done to the criminal justice system, I am surprised to be saying that. I believe that the victims bill of rights could be a positive step toward alleviating some of the frustrations and emotional pain that victims face participating in the justice process today.

However, the bill is still an imperfect document. I hope that we will improve it in years to come. We were disappointed that, in committee, our worthy amendments were dismissed.

Recent research points to a worrying trend. Canadians, especially victims of crime, have lost confidence in our justice system. A recent report by our own Department of Justice on survivors of sexual violence found that:

While 53% of participants stated that they were not confident in the police, two-thirds stated that they were not confident in the court process and in the criminal justice system in general.

It is no surprise that victims often do not report crimes. As so many victims groups have shared with us, going through the justice process can be confusing, emotionally draining, frightening and demoralizing.

The bill seeks to address some of the concerns of victims, those being greater rights to information, restitution, and protection. However, in the bill, these are more accurately called promises than rights.

I do not believe the bill would deliver what the Prime Minister said it would, that now “Victims will have enforceable rights in Canada’s criminal justice system”.

As many witnesses pointed out to the justice committee, the bill would not really set out rights because there are no substantial redress for violations. Victims are entitled to file a complaint if they feel their rights have been violated and a complaint is better than nothing, but it is not redress.

If this promise is followed by good faith and funding, we will have succeeded in improving the experience of victims in the justice system; if not, we will have made matters worse by promising but not delivering.

Though I support the bill on balance, I have concerns about some of the provisions. As Ms. Sullivan wrote, it is not necessary that we all agree on every aspect of the bill, and:

...what is important is the marking of a cultural shift to more fully consider and integrate victims’ in Canada’s criminal justice system and, jointly, the opportunity for important discourse about victims’ needs and how to better address them.

Since many of the concerns of victims were not addressed in the bill, I hope that Bill C-32 is only the start of the conversation on this important issue.

Three sections, in particular, worry me. I am most concerned about, first, restitution; second, redefining the purpose of sentencing; and third, non-disclosure of witness identities.

I have some concerns with clause 30 that would require that the court consider making a restitution order against the offender, regardless of the offender's ability to pay. This could cause issues both for the victims and the offenders. Restitution, as we have heard from many victims groups, can be an extremely important part of the healing process. It can also be an important step for offenders taking responsibility for their actions.

However, I am concerned, and witnesses were concerned, by the way these provisions are worded. As Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society, has warned, these orders for restitution could have a disproportionate effect on those offenders who, far too often, are:

...poor, marginalized, battling mental health and addictions and without the lawful means to provide financial compensation to others.

These orders could also open up the issue of fairness in the justice system.

At the same time, legal experts argue that the wording of 739.2, that requires the judge to specify a day by which the full amount is to be paid, would undermine the good that this system does for victims.

According to the Canadian Bar Association, “Including a deadline for payment could create adverse consequences for victims”.

The victim would not be able to go to court to enforce their order until the final date has lapsed, which could be many years away. According to the Bar Association, “[It] may have the adverse effect of providing victims with false hope of financial recovery”.

The worst thing that could happen is that victims be given the expectation of funds that they will never receive, and at the same time, burdening impoverished offenders with long-term debts that will prevent their rehabilitation.

I am concerned that these provisions will receive the same fate as the victim surcharges that judges have simply been refusing to order and this will leave victims unsupported.

Bill C-32 also seeks to redefine the purposes of sentencing in the Criminal Code. To echo the concerns of the Bar Association:

The cumulative impact of these proposed amendments, with the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties and the elimination of conditional sentence orders for many non-violent offenders, risks adding to Canada’s over-reliance on incarceration.

I do not see how these changes will have positive benefits for victims and may have the negative effect of prioritizing harm done over the other purposes of sentencing. Sentencing is a delicate balance, and there is no evidence to suggest that the balance in the code is presently broken.

Perhaps the most egregious element in this bill is clause 17. That would allow a judge to “make an order directing that any information that could identify the witness not be disclosed in the course of proceedings”.

As every legal expert who testified before the committee noted, this is an unprecedented and almost certainly unconstitutional breach of the right to a fair trial. As Howard Krongold of the Criminal Lawyers' Association testified at committee:

But it's hard to imagine a more fundamental change to Canadian law, one less consistent with Canadians' visions of open, fair justice, where everybody has a chance to a fair trial, where they can make full answer and defence and confront the witnesses against them.

Eric Gottardi of CBA added:

Clause 17 contemplates at least the possibility that the accused and counsel for the accused and the crown might have to cross-examine or direct examine a witness when they have no idea who the witness is. I haven't found a single case that talks about that, and I can't imagine a scenario, short of life and death and someone essentially amounting to a confidential informer, where that kind of process would pass constitutional muster.

Under extreme circumstances, judges already can use their discretion to limit the disclosure of witness identity through the use of pseudonyms, publication bans, and other measures. These are exceptions to the open court principle and they are used sparingly by judges. I would like to repeat the concerns of so many legal experts that what this clause anticipates is a clear violation of the open court principle. This is very worrying.

Every party in this House supports Bill C-32 in principle. It seems, though, that the Conservatives just could not help themselves. They had to insert something blatantly unconstitutional into a bill that everyone supports in principle.

All in all, the bill is a reasonable step toward addressing the difficult position that victims hold in the justice system. It needs to be strengthened and improved, and it will take work. As I said earlier, the bill constitutes more of a promise than it does a bill of rights. Let's make sure we keep that promise.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on the amendments.

The member indicated that Bill C-32 is a step in the right direction but that it does not do enough for victims. However, rather than talking about victims, he spent 10 minutes talking about other issues such as sentencing, the consequences of disclosing the name of a witness and restitution.

I am trying to understand. Are we trying to strengthen the victims bill of rights or amend certain principles of criminal law? If I understood correctly, the member seemed to say at the beginning of his speech that the bill of rights is rather limited. However, if I understood the amendment correctly, the member wants to scale back the victims bill of rights.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has good intent and it has some good parts, but we are asking for deletions because there are some parts of the bill that are flawed, particularly in terms of sentencing.

I would like to read the portion of the Criminal Code, section 718, which is redundant in the bill and muddies the waters a bit by reiterating some of the objectives. It reads:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Thunder Bay—Superior North for his speech. It was a very insightful analysis into some of the major flaws of the bill.

All of the flaws that the member pointed out were identified and flagged, as he said, by the Canadian Bar Association, whose representative testified at committee. They were also the subject of amendments that were proposed at committee and rejected.

In fact, the Canadian Bar Association submitted an extensive brief with several recommendations. Every single one of those recommendations was proposed in amendment form and every single one was rejected by the Conservative majority on the committee.

However, my question has to do with resources. It is all well and good to have a lengthy preamble and statements about how we are going to improve the lot of victims and all of these declarations, but unless there are adequate resources to fund programs, and unless there are adequate resources to give the victims the right to information and to complain, contained in the bill, then it is really not worth the paper it is printed on.

I would like to get the hon. member's views on what more should be done, other than what is in the bill, to give the victims the standing in the justice system that they so dearly want.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the Prime Minister effectively made a political statement promising that the bill would really help in terms of victims' rights. However, as I have commented repeatedly in my speech, it does not really do that as strongly as it might.

The hon. member for Charlottetown talked about the purpose and intent of the bill and if we would have the resources there for that. The bill is visionary. It does point us in a strengthened direction with good ways in how to strengthen victims' rights. However, we come to Hyer's law, and Hyer's law of vision is that vision without funding is hallucination.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Seniors; and the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Official Languages.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to speak to a subject that we have been studying in committee for quite some time. This government's bills are all about protecting victims. Bill C-32 is the result of consultations with 185 groups from across the country as well as 300 online submissions.

One thing that the government heard frequently is that victims face many injustices when they interact with the justice system. I would like to give an example of what Bill C-32 is going to do to help victims and witnesses deal with the difficulties they experience in the courtroom.

Ms. Timea Nagy, founder of Walk With Me Canada Victim Services, shared with us something that happens quite often in trials involving organized crime.

Let me tell members a bit about what this organization is doing in the community.

Established by a survivor of human trafficking, Walk With Me was created with a commitment to ensure that survivors have a place in providing first response care to victims of human trafficking and to recognizing that survivors should have a voice in developing a coordinated community response that can meet immediate crises and longer-term needs of trafficked victims. Since its inception in 2009, Walk With Me has been working closely with various police services across Canada and has been able to provide unique services and support to many victims of human trafficking in Ontario and all across Canada.

You can already imagine the immense courage that Ms. Nagy and the people she helps must have.

During the committee study, Ms. Nagy shared a story with us. When she testified in court in a human trafficking case—she was both witness and victim—the accused's brother was in court and motioned to her that he would slit her throat.

It is understandable that this type of behaviour intimidates victims and witnesses. In many cases, the victims or witnesses are too scared to testify because they are afraid of reprisals. The crown attorneys cannot use their testimony to send dangerous criminals, members of organized crime, to jail.

Bill C-32 will allow witnesses to testify without seeing those present. The purpose of this measure is to reduce intimidation in order not to revictimize the victim. The bill will also improve the justice system by providing crown attorneys with additional tools to collect more solid evidence against criminals during their trial. We hope that this will reduce the number of criminals who avoid serving jail time because they manage to intimidate key witnesses.

Revictimization is an issue that came up a number of times. Victims felt it was important for Bill C-32 not to create additional delays. A procedural delay prevents victims from moving forward in their healing process.

As Alain Fortier, the president of Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin, explained, victims are forced to remember the details of terrible, traumatic events. They have to constantly relive the negative experience and describe it in court. Victims want to be able to heal. The longer the process is, the greater the consequences for the victim. That is why it would be bad for Bill C-32 to create additional delays in a process that is already too painful.

Another interesting point I want to talk about is spouses being uncompellable. In short, this means that witnesses cannot be required to disclose something their spouse told them. This frequently comes up in cases of drunk driving, where the only witness is often the driver's spouse.

Lise Lebel, the president of the Fondation Katherine Beaulieu, a Quebec organization that does similar work to that of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, told the committee:

Our organization agrees with the amendments proposed in Bill [C-32], which obliges spouses to testify in all cases. These amendments reflect a systematic trend towards providing crown prosecutors with access to all relevant evidence.

Once again, it is important to give crown prosecutors all the tools they need. Our justice system needs to re-earn the public's trust, and this is another good example of how we can achieve that.

A number of victims' groups told us that the victims bill of rights was a step in the right direction. I want to name a few of the groups that testified in committee.

They include MADD; Robert Hooper, lawyer and victims' rights advocate; Steve Sullivan, former federal ombudsman for victims of crime; Boost Child Abuse Prevention & Intervention; Comité des orphelins victimes d'abus; Timea Nagy, founder of Walk With Me Canada Victim Services; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre Niagara; London Abused Women's Centre; Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin; La fondation Katherine Beaulieu; Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre; the Alberta minister of justice, the Hon. Jonathan Denis; the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.; the Canadian Bar Association; the Canadian Centre for Child Protection; the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime; the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation; the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel; the Canadian Coalition against Terror; the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness; the great Sharon Rosenfeldt, pioneer in victim services in Canada and founder of the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children; and l'Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues. We can even add, albeit to a lesser extent, the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

Some aboriginal groups also came to express their opinion on the bill and to talk about the challenges that their communities faced. They all, in the end, support this bill.

I thank the office of the Nation nishnawbe-aski, NWAC, and the Pauktuutit Inuit women's association for their precious contribution to the work of the justice committee.

Bill C-32 has near-unanimous support. I want to quote my hon. colleague from Gatineau, the NDP's justice critic.

She said:

I think everybody agrees that Bill C-32 is a good step. It's a step in a good direction. It has good at the heart of it.

In conclusion, I want to say that Bill C-32 had the unanimous support of all parties represented on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for quoting me.

Having said that, I still do not understand why Conservative members of the committee objected to a request from the official opposition that mirrored a request made by two justice ministers, neither of whom was on my colleague's list of witnesses who appeared.

The committee did hear from two justice ministers, the attorneys general of their provinces, Alberta's justice minister and Saskatchewan's justice minister, if I am not mistaken. Both called for an adjustment period given that, as Mr. Murie of MADD Canada said, 90% of the new charter falls under provincial jurisdiction. The two attorneys general of those provinces, and others I talked to, felt that three months to implement the bill following its enactment was not enough. They asked for six months, but their request was turned down. That seems like a very logical request to me, so I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain why it was refused yet again.

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

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

Representatives of two of the ten provinces appeared before the committee. All of the provinces and territories were invited. Two provinces seemed to want a longer deadline for implementation. However, even though all of the provinces and territories were invited to appear or to send written submissions, only two provinces sent representatives. Why would we extend the deadline when only two of the 13 provinces and territories asked for that? The victims have waited years for a law that would consider their needs. Sharon Rosenfeldt is a pioneer who has been waiting for this law for 33 years. She contributed a lot to developing this law.

Basically, victims have been waiting for a long time, and it is time we acted to protect their interests.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary about the testimony of another witness at committee, a person by the name of Maureen Basnicki. She described herself as a very reluctant member of the victims of crime club. Her husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks in the United States.

The definition of “victim” contained in the act excluded her. Why did the government exclude this group of victims, and, once it was pointed out, why did it not fix it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the incidents that led to the death of this witness's husband are truly regrettable, but one can easily understand that laws that have extraterritorial provisions are often the subject matter of international conventions. Certainly it was not within the scope or the ambit of the act to act in such a fashion to give, I guess, credence to this victim's request.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask my colleague if he is aware of whether or not the government gave consideration to something that came to my attention when we were dealing with the bill. It was in an earlier private member's bill and was about adding penalties to perpetrators of crimes to help pay for victims.

The restitutional and compensation provisions that allow for claims to be brought in this bill are one thing, but that fact of the matter is that the needs of victims and their families for support at the level of trauma and grief are huge in this country. We are faced with a patchwork quilt and not across-the-board federal involvement.

I wonder if my colleague across the way can tell us whether any consideration was given to enhancing the role of the federal government in supporting groups on the ground that are helping people struggling with grief and trauma.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if the exact topics that the learned member is talking about were brought to my attention.

What I can say is that obviously part of the web of services that would come to victims are not only out of the victims bill of rights but also from victims' groups that are financed, in some instances, by the federal government.

Members will recollect that we did do the victims' surcharge act. Of course, the funds that come from the victims' surcharge go directly to victims' services and in some instances to groups that try to deal with grief. Certainly there is more work to be done with regard to grief and helping victims through the trauma, and that is at the very heart and essence of what this act attempts to accomplish.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-32, Victims Bill of Rights Act, at report stage.

This charter codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution. It also amends some related legislation. Basically, this charter is meant to grant rights to victims, who have often been the forgotten parties in our justice system.

We are at report stage, but it took eight years and countless photo ops and press conferences for the Conservatives to finally decide to introduce their bill. I would really like to believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when he said that they consulted 185 groups and 300 online submissions, but I am not sure they actually heard the message.

All the parties represented on committee agreed on the charter, although we tried our best to improve the charter so that it would produce the desired results for victims. My heart breaks for these victims. However, this is a first step, so we will take it. It is important to be positive in life.

That said, we could have done so much better. We already spoke about this charter at length at second reading. The parliamentary secretary has already named a number of witnesses, and I will not repeat that. However, I will say that about 40 people appeared before the committee over the many days we spent listening, reflecting and presenting amendments that we felt reflected the concerns of victims.

At least we had enough time to hear all the witnesses we called in. As an aside, of all the provinces only Saskatchewan submitted a brief in the form of a letter and only Alberta's justice minister provided testimony via video conference to share his arguments.

It is too bad, because victims groups, victims rights groups, and legal groups all agree: the responsibility of enforcing this bill of rights will fall to the provinces. We all realize that. It is clear that the provinces will bear the burden of codifying these rights to information, protection, participation and restitution.

It is too bad that we did not get opinions from all the provinces, but at the same time, as one witness in committee said so well, this suggests that the provinces are not very interested in this Canadian bill of rights.

More often we were told that this bill of rights simply codifies federally what is already being done on the ground. The victims rights groups showed us that this is applied haphazardly and in different ways in various regions across our large country. That might be the good thing about this victims bill of rights, but the provinces still need to be on board. As a crown prosecutor who testified before the committee wisely said, if every tribunal applies these rights differently, then we are no further ahead.

We could have done so much better. The government rejected a number of sound amendments. I will read a few.

I am especially saddened to hear that victims rights groups, or the victims themselves, came before the committee to tell us that the problem with the charter is that there is absolutely nothing binding in it.

We often rise in the House to criticize the government for its mandatory minimum sentences and the fact that it basically forces the courts to go in a certain direction and does not let them be the judge or use their own judgement and experience to hand down the best decisions. We have a charter that offers too much flexibility, to the point that just about anyone can do just about anything with this charter.

The message for the victims is sad, but also positive. The positive aspect is that we are finally talking about the victims and we are all united in this. Something has to be done, something has to happen. A heartfelt plea has been made and heard. We must not allow this to be forgotten, so that in three, four, five or six years we will not have to go back to the drawing board and do things right.

I want to give some examples of how this is not very binding. The bill of rights provides for a complaint mechanism. We cannot tell the provinces how to do their job. At the federal level, no one is quite sure how this complaint mechanism will work. To whom do people complain? What we are being told is that if someone files a complaint, the decision will not be binding, so as not to create problems. This means that we have a complaint mechanism, but ultimately, it will not do much.

I also want to talk about the right to information. I think it is rather absurd to say that victims have a right to information, since victims will have to assert that right. The amendments that the NDP proposed in committee were basic amendments. They had nothing to do with how the processes work. They did not affect outcomes or protections for the accused. They were in full compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but at the same time, they made certain aspects of the bill of rights stronger, such as the right to information. All victims have the right to information, but not as it is currently set out in the bill of rights, which states that they must request it.

It is a matter of onus. The onus is still on the victims. Victims have to ask for their rights, whether it be the right to information or the right to be kept up to date. Things will be done only at the victims' request. In my opinion, the crux of this bill of rights is found at the very beginning of Bill C-32. That is the very heart of the rights set out in this much-touted bill of rights. Without that, it is just a bunch of statements of principle that do not amount to much.

The bill enacts a bill of rights and then states:

Information

Every victim has the right, on request, to information about...

In clause 7, it reads:

Every victim has the right, on request, to information...

Clause 8 indicates:

Every victim has the right, on request, to information...

If we want to do right by victims, if we want to really give them rights, if we want to give them their rightful place in the justice system, then at some point we need to do more than introduce a bill filled with platitudes.

We are not objecting to Bill C-32. I agree with everyone that it is a small step in the right direction. I am pleased that the government accepted an amendment from the opposition, one of the amendments that I proposed. I am not trying to flatter myself because I feel as though my proposal was completely watered down. We were asking for the House of Commons committee, the Senate committee or the committees for both chambers designated or established for that purpose to examine the application of the enacted Canadian victims bill of rights two years after clause 2 came into force. The Conservatives changed the timeline to five years.

That is rather unfortunate, as is the fact that they did not agree to listen to the provinces, which were asking for a little more time to apply the bill of rights.

Money will be the sinews of war when it comes to the application of the bill of rights.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and her leadership at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She is a real leader in committee.

She spoke a bit about the amendments that the NDP proposed in committee. I feel that at least one of those amendments was very important, namely the one that proposed an annual report with statistics. I would like to hear the member talk about that.

As we say in English, “If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.”

I believe that was the point of the amendment.

Could the member explain why this amendment was important and talk about the reasons the government gave for rejecting this worthwhile suggestion?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member for Charlottetown. I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to say a few more words. He is right, this amendment was extremely important.

Amendment No. 5 from the NDP created this new clause:

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

30. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an annual report for the previous year on the operation of this Act that contains the following information:

(a) the number of restitution orders [which our Green Party colleague spoke about] made under section 16;

(b) the number of requests for information [from victims] made under sections 7 and 8; and

(c) the number of complaints filed under sections 25 and 26.

We feel this is a vital part of ensuring that this kind of bill succeeds. In 10 years or less, victims will have faced this legal ambiguity first-hand, as it will likely come into force in the coming year. It would have been useful to have these statistics.

However, once again, as in so many other areas, this government is not very fond of statistics. It does not like any facts that could prove that this was all just a smokescreen. This charter presents well in polite company, but it needs a little more meat on the bones.

That amendment would have put more meat on the bones, but unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague, who has, not just on this bill but on countless bills, put in so much effective and hard work in the justice committee.

The question I had asked earlier of the parliamentary secretary touched on a bill that we worked on dealing with surcharges. One of the things I have learned about the government's attitude is the idea that support for victims from the federal perspective comes from one of two things. One is the perpetrator pays, which is a completely inadequate philosophy given how little money most have and how little that would amount to anyway, and/or the provinces pay.

I wonder whether my colleague would comment and agree with me, perhaps, that the understanding of the government about the criminal law jurisdiction of the federal government is entirely cramped and that it really stops at the gates of legislating for law and order purposes and really does not take into full account the responsibility of federal law for working with the provinces to deal with victims and their families, and the trauma and grief they experience, in particular.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but we could hold an entire conference just on this subject.

When it comes to criminal justice, in particular, we often have the impression that the Department of Justice is a bill-making factory. Lawyers in the Department of Justice, whom I commend, work incredibly hard.

These are fine principles, the Canadian victims bill of rights and tougher penalties for criminals. However, once they are debated in this magnificent, beautifully decorated chamber, it is the real people outside these walls who must work every day with real victims and in real courts in the provinces and territories. It is the real world that is called upon to enforce these laws, which we spew out at an alarming rate.

We need to proceed a little more thoughtfully when it comes to matters of justice, otherwise there will be chaos. If we think people have a bad impression of the justice system now, it will only get worse in the years to come.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the bill on victims' rights. I am also pleased to indicate that the Liberal caucus will continue to support this legislation.

As the members opposite will fondly recall, supporting victims of crime has long been a Liberal priority. Specifically, I would point to the Liberal government's 2003 statement of basic principles for justice for victims of crime. This statement was collectively drafted by provincial and federal representatives to modernize basic principles of justice for victims.

As the Department of Justice states, those are the “basic principles continue to guide the development of policies, programs and legislation related to victims of crime. They also provide a foundation for the Policy Centre for Victim Issues' work.”

Further, in 2005, with the hon. member for Mount Royal serving as justice minister, the Liberal government announced new initiatives to support victims, including allowing them to apply for financial assistance to attend the National Parole Board hearings of the offender who harmed them.

I also want to acknowledge that victims' rights is an issue that has drawn multi-party support in the past. The Liberal government's progress built on earlier efforts from the 1988 Progressive Conservative federal government, which also worked together with the country's territorial and provincial justice ministers.

This is the sort of constructive engagement with the provinces and territories that many on this side fondly recall. This type of co-operation for the betterment of Canada has been eroded in recent years.

Bill C-32 contains a number of suggestions for helping Canadians who are victims of crime, violent crime in particular. This bill creates the Canadian victims bill of rights, which provides victims with a substantial number of legal rights.

Even though in many cases Bill C-32 simply codifies existing rights and practices, when it comes to helping victims, I am pleased to side with legal certainty.

What does Bill C-32 seek to accomplish? It seeks to create the rights to information and services that will give victims peace of mind during the criminal proceedings they will be involved in and thereafter. It will clarify the victims right to be protected, to submit a statement, and to obtain restitution from offenders. It will make it easier for vulnerable victims to testify, expand intimidation as a criminal offence, and amend an archaic statute in the Evidence Act in order to compel testimony from the spouse of an accused, a law that has already been subject to a number of exceptions.

However, though we generally agree with what the government seeks to accomplish, we wish the government would have followed the practices of former PC and Liberal governments by accepting advice on how Bill C-32 could have been improved for victims of crime. The committee process could best be described as a missed opportunity.

Bill C-32 is not a perfect bill. A significant problem is that it would increase the obligations on backlogged courts and the demands on prosecutors, without increasing the resources allocated to meet those obligations. In short, the bill would assign new work without providing new funds. Apparently, the government is operating on the assumption that our courts and prosecutors are underworked. Of course that is not the case, and the already overburdened provinces will have to pick up to the tab.

To the point on resources, I would like to share with members one example included in the Canadian Bar Association's recommendations, an example I shared with our Conservative-controlled committee in the hopes that it would seriously consider improving the bill. The example deals with the new requirement that prosecutors attempt to inform victims of plea deals.

I will read a quote from the Canadian Bar Association:

A typical experience for a front line Crown counsel dealing with the proposed legislative change might go like this:

A Crown counsel is dealing with 100 cases on a particular morning where the accused is scheduled to enter a plea. Lawyers for ten of the accused inform the Crown only that morning of a guilty plea.

The Crown has no time to contact victims of the ten accused to tell them of the proposed pleas. When the Court asks the Crown if victims have been informed, the Crown says no, in regard to the ten cases. The Court adjourns those cases, so the guilty pleas are not accepted. By the next appearance, four of the ten accused change their minds about pleading guilty and want a trial. Victims are then required to testify when they otherwise would have been spared the trauma of reliving their experience through vigorous cross-examination.

At committee I introduced an amendment to remedy this flaw in the bill, a flaw that without the provision of additional resources is likely to slow the administration of justice and traumatize a significant number of the victims we are all trying to help.

As the Canadian Bar Association recommended, I suggested that a victim only need be notified of a plea deal where there would be a joint submission on sentencing, that is, the deals that the prosecutors would more likely have made in advance. These are also the deals where the crown would be suggesting a particular sentence rather than a plea to a lesser offence.

What was the Conservative response? Before the Conservatives voted against this particular amendment of mine, the parliamentary secretary and the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe said the following:

We're concerned that this amendment would lead to delays, and would place an undue burden on the crown prosecutor. The system has to function, and for that reason, we can't support this amendment.

The purpose of my amendment was to reduce the wait times this bill will create, but the Conservatives decided to vote against that amendment. I would like them to explain the logic behind that, but then again contradictions are notoriously hard to explain. That is just one of the amendments that I proposed.

In committee, the Conservatives rejected 18—that is right, 18—Liberal amendments that could have improved this bill. They did not reject the amendments because they were bad. They rejected them simply because they were Liberal amendments.

Honourable colleagues, this kind of behaviour is Parliament at its worst. With that in mind, let us look at other amendments the Conservatives rejected.

As I indicated in an earlier question at committee, we heard from a witness named Maureen Basnicki. Ms. Basnicki is a Canadian whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks. At committee, she explained that she had experienced difficulty in accessing victims' services because her husband was murdered by terrorists outside the country. She urged us to extend any lawfully available domestic rights to Canadian victims of crime that occur outside of Canada.

I would like to share some of her testimony with the chamber. She said:

....perpetrators of crimes are still demanding their rights as Canadian citizens when they've been successfully prosecuted for crimes outside the country, and I want to bring balance to this. This is not a new step. It's new for Canadians, perhaps, but other countries do this, many other countries. Most other countries do.

After listening to Ms. Basnicki, I introduced an amendment to capture her unfairly overlooked constituency, to grant domestically available victims' benefits to Canadians who have experienced serious personal injury crimes outside the country, or whose family members have been murdered outside the country.

The Conservatives refused to include the victims of the 9/11 attacks in the legislation, and refused to amend it after hearing from Ms. Basnicki.

We also heard from a representative of the Chiefs of Ontario, who wanted to bring some balance to consider the unique circumstances of aboriginal victims in the justice system. All of the amendments proposed by the Chiefs of Ontario were similarly rejected.

Bill C-32 is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. It will do good work for Canadian victims of crime, so the Liberals will support Bill C-32 and endeavour to improve on these efforts when we form the next government.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. There is no denying that the Liberals unfortunately have little to show for their 13 years in power. In 1996, they promised to introduce a victims charter. However, like their Conservative friends, they merely made a promise and got a lot of mileage out of it while they kept on postponing any such initiatives.

I would like to know why, under the government whose party my colleague now represents, this measure was not established and implemented.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the member heard my speech. The first paragraphs of my speech highlighted all the measures implemented by Liberal governments and the measures introduced by the former justice minister, the member for Mount Royal in 2003.

Perhaps it bears repeating. In 2003, the Liberal government passed a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. In 2005, the member for Mount Royal, serving as justice minister, announced new initiatives to support victims, including allowing them to file for financial assistance to attend the Parole Board hearings of the offenders who harmed them.

I do not accept for a minute that the history and tradition of the Liberal Party has not been in support of victims. It absolutely has been in support of victims and will continue to be so.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlottetown for his speech.

It is true that the Liberals, my colleague from the Green Party and the NDP proposed several amendments. We did not do it for the fun of it, but to try to improve the bill and carry out our mandate as a committee. After second reading in the House, the bill goes to a committee where we have the opportunity to hear witnesses explain things and to listen to what they have to say. We take away the key messages, analyze them and try to incorporate them into the legislative process. Then we report to the House.

I wonder how the member for Charlottetown explains the fact that, committee after committee, and despite all the hard work we do, we inevitably get stock answers. The parliamentary secretary reads us an answer, which was probably written by someone else, telling us that the amendment is not acceptable and that the Conservative members will not accept it.

How does he explain that? Do members not have the responsibility, regardless of political allegiance, to do the work they are tasked to do as members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's frustration. She is absolutely right. The process at committee was not a real process. Unfortunately, it was a bit of a sham.

The process that we saw at committee, and continue to see, makes committees a bit of a joke. It is a perfunctory process. We hear from witnesses who have solid recommendations, including the Canadian Bar Association. That association, apparently, is worthy enough to be consulted when we appoint judges, but when it comes before the justice committee and makes eight recommendations to improve the bill, each and every one is rejected out of hand. It is a sad charade.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Chair must interrupt the hon. member for Langley at this time. He will have five minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration from December 10 of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Victims Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not echo all my colleagues. I did so earlier this morning in the House. I wish everyone here a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak once again to Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

As members know, the NDP supports Bill C-32 and will vote in favour of it. I will spend the little time I have sharing what some witnesses had to say in committee. We proposed a number of amendments in committee, and it will come as no surprise that the Conservatives rejected every last one of them.

I would like to raise one point before I begin. During question period, we learned that the government was going to put an end to one of our most important public safety programs. I am speechless. I thought the safety of communities was the Conservatives’ number one priority. I do not understand how it is possible that we are now hearing that they do not want to put the necessary resources into it. They are talking about cuts of nearly $650 million. Because of this, they must discontinue the most important public safety program: supervision of offenders.

This is not compatible with a Canadian victims bill of rights, because not only do victims have rights during the investigation and the trial, but also they have rights after the trial and after the perpetrator has served his sentence. Victims have rights at all steps in the legal process.

The fact that the Conservatives are ending a program that is as important as the supervision of offenders in communities seems to me to be incompatible with the very intent of a Canadian victims bill of rights. Not only do victims want their rights to be respected before, during and after the legal process, but all Canadians are entitled to feel safe in their own community. How can the government justify cutting these millions of dollars to the families of victims, to the victims themselves and to their friends when this will have a direct impact on the safety of our communities?

I just wanted to express my outrage and disappointment. I even think it is unfair to victims. This bill is a step in the right direction. I will speak to specific points later. However, how can the government claim to care about victims’ rights when, after the legal process and after the accused has served his sentence, it forgets the very essence of a Canadian victims bill of rights, which encompasses the right to safety and security?

We are going to support the Canadian victims bill of rights, but I just wanted to tell the government that it cannot do this. It cannot simply give up on the safety and security of victims because the legal process is over. This flies in the face of what our legal system is about. Frankly, I cannot understand why the government would want to end this public safety program, which is one of the most important programs in Canada.

Then, I would like to talk about some of the amendments put forward by the NDP, the reason why the Conservatives are against them and the dichotomy between the evidence given by the victims and expert witnesses who came before us in committee and, unfortunately, the Conservatives’ opinion.

For example, I will present the first of these amendments. This one in fact comes up at various points throughout the bill. I will be referring to the evidence provided by Arlène Gaudreault, president of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes. In her testimony, she told us that the bill contains no proactive rights. It is therefore only an expression of general principles that provide guidance for the players in the justice system as we know it now. There is no right to information. In fact, one of the amendments that we put forward was that these rights should not exist only if the victims ask for them, but that there should be a certain rigour on the part of the players in the justice system as we know it and that the burden should not rest solely on the shoulders of victims, but on all the players in the system.

Ms. Gaudreault said the following:

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

The intention is good here. I want to say that because I can just picture my Conservative colleagues gnashing their teeth and saying that makes no sense because the NDP is always on the wrong side. However, a closer look at the wording of the bill reveals that the burden is placed squarely on victims and the provinces. Basically, the Conservatives want to pass a law and then wash their hands of it. Sure, they did their homework and consulted stakeholders. Honestly, I am not sure that the government actually consulted the provinces because several provinces have said that the bill seems to hold them responsible for 90% of the work. We already know that the budget for legal aid has shrunk over the past few years and that the provinces have already run out of resources. Many judgeships are vacant.

The fact that we do not know who is in charge of enforcing this bill is another extremely important aspect of this bill. The government says that there will be a complaint mechanism if victims' rights are not respected, but it is not clear to whom they should complain. Who will review the complaint? How is that process supposed to work?

Yes, this is a step in the right direction. We are used to that kind of thing from the Conservatives. It is a shame, but all of the stakeholders are always struggling for crumbs from the government. It doles things out in dribs and drabs, like throwing crumbs to pigeons, and we have no choice but to accept what it proposes. Unfortunately, the government rejects our amendments.

There are good intentions here, but Ms. Gaudreault said that none of the agencies' obligations are clear. Those obligations have been brought up repeatedly over the years. Here is what she said:

This has been an issue for years. Our organization has participated in all the consultations, and this issue has often come up. It is important for victims to know where to turn to obtain information, participate in proceedings or obtain protection.

Victims need to know where to turn to have their rights respected and who is responsible for enforcing those rights. Unfortunately, once again, the Conservatives are presenting an empty shell. I will be quite interested to see, in a few years, how this bill will be implemented. However, without the resources needed on the ground and without any consultation with the provinces, which will have to apply 90% of the Canadian victims bill of rights, we may hit a wall.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to wish my colleagues, you, those watching on CPAC and all House of Commons employees a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In a few minutes, she was able to put things into context. As she said, this bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is based on good intentions, but generally speaking, the resources are not there to follow through on those intentions. I am somewhat worried about that.

Could my colleague elaborate on the lack of a comprehensive approach and funding for the charter? What does she believe should be added immediately to make this a better bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It was quite difficult for me to give a 10-minute summary of a bill that was discussed over many weeks. We heard from 20 or 30 witnesses on this bill.

The first amendments we proposed were intended to make everyone involved in the justice system aware of their responsibilities in terms of respecting victims' rights. At present, under this bill of rights, the victims themselves must argue for their rights. There is an imbalance. The burden is being placed not only on the provinces, but also on the victims. Double-talk will not work here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I thank her for the good work she has done on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This bill has had quite a bit of fine-tuning. It was not easy to strike a balance that took into account all the material presented by the witnesses. For instance, the House should look at clause 21 of the bill. This clause provides that prosecutors would have to take reasonable steps to inform victims that an agreement for a guilty plea has been reached.

That was a cause of much discussion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Some wonder if it goes too far and if it is a necessary element, especially given the testimony by the Canadian Bar Association. Can the hon. member tell us something about clause 21?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The essence of a bill is always in its application.

The victims we spoke to often raised certain problems, particularly because the bill does not mention obligations. It is like a smokescreen. It is not clear who will have to enforce the law or which organization will be responsible for receiving complaints. Will it be the crown prosecutors or some agency?

There is still a lot to be done. This bill has not established a solid framework and does not express clearly and precisely how the rights of victims are going to be respected. I cannot even talk about resources, since a crown attorney came to tell us that their offices are overflowing with files and they have no time. The problem, in addition to the glaring lack of resources in the justice system, is that the bill does not say who will be responsible for enforcing this bill of rights.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments by stating unequivocally that in spite of the comments often lobbed against us in this place by the government side, New Democrats have always defended victims' rights. We want them to have access to the services and support they need. We have fought, and will continue to fight, each and every day to help victims across the country get the funding, support, and resources they need to overcome the physical and psychological trauma that results from often unspeakable actions perpetrated against them by the most heinous of criminals.

We need to start by looking at a little bit of the history of this bill. The Conservatives promised to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights, or CVBR, as it is often called, in 2006. Sadly, it has taken more than seven years for this promise to finally come to fruition. It was not until the 2013 throne speech that the Conservatives finally made good on their pledge to victims, when they announced that the government would introduce a victims bill of rights to restore victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system.

Statistics about the cost to victims from crimes perpetrated against them are startling and underscore the urgency of creating a system that puts victims' rights at the fore of the criminal justice system. For instance, a study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice Canada found that the total cost of crime is estimated to be $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by victims.

For the nearly two million criminal incidents that were reported to Canadian police services in 2012, more than 450,000 primary and secondary victims sought victims' services that year alone. Given that a large component of victims' service providers make heavy use of volunteers, clearly more resources are needed to ensure that victims can access the services they require when they require them. Here, 72% of victims' services providers made use of volunteers. Obviously, these volunteers deserve kudos and applause for their commitment to assisting victims of crime. However, it also demonstrates a dire need in our community for resources specifically dedicated to the victims of crime and their families.

Let me be clear. New Democrats support this bill and any effort to improve the circumstances of victims of crime. However, New Democrats also feel that this legislation should go further. It certainly does not meet the expectations the Conservatives have been setting since 2006. For instance, the Canadian victims bill of rights would not designate legal obligations for other stakeholders in the judicial system. It would simply provide 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 had their rights infringed.

Complaints directed at provincial or territorial organizations, including the police, the crown, and any victims' rights organizations, would be processed directly under the appropriate province's or territory's law. The practicality of this can certainly be questioned, and no specific funds have yet been attributed to the implementation of these mechanisms for examining complaints or for helping out the provinces in this regard.

The victims bill of rights also includes preclusive clauses stipulating that the new rights be enforced within reasonable means and that they avoid interfering with the discretionary powers of the police or the crown, causing excessive delays, compromising investigations and or proceedings, and bringing procedures to a standstill. In addition to this, the Canadian victims bill of rights would not confer third-party stakeholder or observer status to those who represent victims at criminal proceedings.

In sum, while it is nice to have principles and to propose bills and charters, this bill would fail to establish a legal obligation for judicial system stakeholders to implement these rights and the resources required to do so.

Quite simply, the Conservatives have yet again failed to articulate a holistic approach to an issue, and have simply chosen to introduce legislation that sounds good from a public relations perspective, but will not have the full impact that victims of crime are seeking.

Teresa Edwards, of the Native Women's Association of Canada, articulated this point exactly when she appeared before the justice committee proceeding on Bill C-32:

We have a long way to go, and I really hope this legislation is not just another piece of paper that the government can point to and say it's doing something about victimization. We really need to translate that into action.... I do want to see action. I want to see results, and I want to see measured, concrete steps of how it's actually going to impact the lives of aboriginal women victims, so that we don't have to keep coming here.

While not surprising from this government, the recommendations from victims and the associations that represent them, as well as those of specialists and professionals who testified at committee, were largely ignored by the Conservatives, who also voted down all of the NDP's sensible amendments to incorporate these views into the scope of the bill.

For instance, Sharlene Lange, the mother of a victim, testified before the justice committee that:

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.

Further, the very well-respected former attorney general of Manitoba, Andrew Swan, voiced his concerns over the potential for the bill to be just a public relations exercise without the proper follow-through from the government, stating:

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.

He says that, if the government does not create a channel to make the bill enforceable, like Manitoba's support services office, then it is an empty gesture.

In conclusion, I would reinforce that New Democrats have been consistent in our support for victims rights. Being the victim of a crime can be incredibly traumatic, and our hearts go out to Canadians who are living through these experiences.

We believe that victims should be able to access support programs and have assistance as they navigate the justice system. It is critical that the government invest in victim services, crime prevention, and other smart solutions to keep our communities safe.

Finally, unlike the Conservatives, we want changes that will make a difference, not just proposals designed to get media attention.

As I am concluding, I just want to ensure that I said I am sharing my time with someone. I want to make sure I did. With that, I now look forward to the question and answer period.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The member for Sudbury will be happy to know that we are past the point where we are now dealing with 10-minute speeches, so it was not necessary for him to have done that.

Having said that, questions and comments, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. As he correctly said, the New Democratic Party has very much been a supporter of the rights of victims, and of putting in place programs and supports and making sure their rights are recognized in a process that is often extraordinarily unfriendly and detrimental to them.

My wife was responsible for establishing the first victims services division in Nova Scotia in 1989-90. It concerns me that, while the bill talks in great principles about the need to support victims, it does not do anything in terms of ensuring that there is enforceability, that those principles are able to be enforced, and that they have a role to play in the process; nor have the Conservatives ensured that the resources are there to actually provide the support that the victims require.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for clarifying matters for me. I do appreciate that.

In relation to the question asked by my hon. colleague, that relates to what our whole debate is about and what we are talking about here. It is great to be able to bring forward a bill and say that we have something here, but if the resources are not there to ensure that we can start providing the services to the victims, and whatever it is they need, then the bill is not doing its job.

That is where our concern lies with the bill. We do not think the bill goes far enough to ensure that we can give the resources and the services that the victims need and will ask for after the crime. I think it is important for us to continue to push the government to recognize that putting something down on paper is a good first step, but making sure that there is funding in place is the actual way to ensure we can help victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say for my friend from Sudbury that clearly our critic for justice, the member for Gatineau, will be working hard with the government to try to improve this bill. There have been a lot of criminal experts, like Clayton Ruby, who have spoken out in articles in the news media regarding this bill. He has said that the victims need rehabilitative programs, services, and compensation from the government and that the government has dropped all of those expensive demands in favour of “shallow symbolism”.

This bill, as it sits, is kind of a hollow shell of what we actually need. Therefore, I am looking forward to the hard work that our friend from Gatineau will do to try to improve this bill. I am sure the member for Sudbury will have some ideas to offer her as well.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his great question and all the hard work he does in relation to human rights and many other files. The question he asked really leads to what our justice critic has been doing and continues to do in working with the government to try to make a bill better.

That is what this place is supposed to do. That is what we as elected members of Parliament are supposed to do to represent our constituents, different parties, and different ideologies. When the government presents a bill, we are supposed to try to make it the best bill possible for Canadians. That is why when bills go to committee and when we are standing here, we propose amendments, and we try to get the government to see that we can do better by listening to victims and to the many experts who have already testified at committee. However, when the experts and victims groups are telling us that they do not feel this bill goes far enough, that it is more just words on paper rather than a document that would go into effect and help victims when they need it, that is something that should be concerning.

I can relate to my prior career when there was an organization in Sudbury called victims' restorative justice. Volunteers were getting together with the victim and the person or criminal who caused the crime, to work together on trying to find some sort of restorative justice for that person. That was a great example of what we can do in finding other ways to help victims.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak at report stage of Bill C-32. I also had the pleasure and privilege of attending a hearing of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this subject. However, that does not make me an expert on it.

As I said at second reading, during the debate in the House, we are going to support Bill C-32. However, we are afraid that the bill may create expectations that will not be met. To some extent, that is what we saw this morning, when we considered Bill S-5. The government can have the best will in the world and try to come up with a bill that lays the foundation for certain principles: a victims bill of rights, in this case. However, if the resources are not forthcoming and fail to accompany the goodwill and the principles, we are a long way from being able to achieve the goals sought by the victims. They do have the right to be supported by the system in the ordeal they are going through. It is a system over which we have at least some control in the House.

One might think that there is logic of a sort for a law and order government to introduce a bill like this one and give it some resources so that it has teeth. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening, but we have seen this in a number of other areas.

The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made a number of recommendations, most of which were ignored. With respect to the recommendations, in fact, the Conservatives took the ones that were the least disruptive or the most neutral in terms of process in order to salve their consciences, in my view. However, other recommendations that were much more substantive were set aside.

Why have an ombudsman for victims of crime if the government is not up to accepting her recommendations and the ideas she presents, which are the result of her experience and the work she does from day to day?

When the bill was tabled in 2014, after many years and numerous press conferences announcing that it was on the way, the ombudsman was extremely critical of the bill and its content. She went so far as to say that she would recommend amendments as Bill C-32 went through the various stages of the process. That is what she did. She submitted some 30 recommendations for changes, but only 14 were accepted. Some were even amended in part. In the final analysis, the recommendations were watered down by the committee which, as we know, has a Conservative majority.

I do not intend to discuss this bill of rights only in a negative way. As I said, I will be voting in favour of the bill, just like my colleagues. The idea of a victims bill of rights is a welcome one, according to what we heard from the groups representing victims of crime. However, speaking of a bill of rights for victims, some of the witnesses came to talk about problems with the content, either because it represents more a kind of harmonization of the federal approach with the provincial approaches, or because ultimately—as the Canadian Bar Association said during the committee hearing—the wording of some sections of the bill could have harmful effects that are not being properly taken into consideration by the government at this time.

In spite of everything and in spite of all the amendments that were submitted to the committee, no changes were made, which is extremely harmful because there were some constructive amendments. The only amendment the Conservative majority on the committee accepted involved a review of the scope and effectiveness of the bill of rights after two years.

As a result, two years after the bill of rights goes into effect, we will check whether it has achieved the goals that the government has boasted about and that the victims are entitled to expect. To get the amendment passed, however, there had to be a sub-amendment by the Conservatives to change the review period to five years. In other words, we will not see whether the bill of rights is actually effective until at least five years later.

I do not want to say that this is smoke and mirrors, because the idea is commendable. Nonetheless, it might not meet the expectations set by the Conservative government's hyperbole at all its press conferences, where it boasts about the upcoming victims bill of rights.

The victims themselves or the victims groups mentioned it a number of times, including before the committee. The testimony of Arlène Gaudreault from the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes is quite representative of what the committee heard. I quote:

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

That is a key point because, even though the victims groups realize that this bill is flawed, they get the sense that they will have an active voice in the process as a whole, especially when it comes to criminal trials against an accused and the parole process.

In fact, they will have a stronger voice than they have as things currently stand, which is a partial explanation for our support for the bill. However, the place the government wants to give victims is not as tangible as the government would have us believe. This view was shared by many of the witnesses in committee.

I would like to come back to the fundamental question from the Canadian Bar Association. The government has introduced a number of law and order bills. I would include here the omnibus budget bills, as they contain a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and legal provisions.

The Canadian Bar Association had an opportunity to appear on a number of occasions before these committees in connection with these amendments to the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Generally speaking, its criticisms were quite scathing and went to the heart of the bill. Because this association represents the views of the majority of lawyers from coast to coast in Canada, we should pay attention to what it says.

In this case, the bar association’s opinion was that the wording of some of the clauses could be challenged under the Constitution or have undesirable effects that might possibly work against the victims. I would have expected this government, which must act responsibly, to have given consideration to these comments from the Canadian Bar Association.

The Standing Committee on Finance heard evidence from the Canadian Bar Association. I know it is quite strange to speak about this committee and this association. Nonetheless, we heard from this association on a number of occasions, because of these mammoth finance bills that the government introduces.

As in other committees, including the public safety and justice committees, the government seems to dismiss out of hand not only the credibility of the Canadian Bar Association, but also its significant and constructive contribution, as if it were an ideologically opposed enemy. It should perhaps view it as an ally that could help improve bills.

I say again that the role of the opposition is not just to oppose all the government’s initiatives. We oppose some bills and we support some bills, such as this one. However, I think the fundamental role of the House of Commons and the opposition is to point out to the government the shortcomings of legislation introduced in the House.

This role has been flatly rejected by the government since it was elected with a majority in 2011. This is very sad, because the process itself and the credibility of the House are called into question when these cases, which are many, are challenged in the Federal Court or the Supreme Court.

In summary, we are going to support this bill. However, we fear that it is nothing but a facade, just an empty shell that does not fully meet victims' expectations.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

He touched on a rather interesting aspect. Like all the others, he talked about how the intentions of this bill and the ability to follow through on those intentions do not quite match up. What I found especially surprising was when he spoke about the Canadian Bar Association's appearance before the finance committee. What I find worrisome about all this is that, yes, there are good intentions, but the assistance for victims stops as soon as the trials are over. Then, apparently, there is no more money.

Could my colleague talk to us a bit about what the Canadian Bar Association said when it appeared before the finance committee, so we can figure out where the problem is? Are there some serious financial issues with respect to the support that this bill would provide?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his question.

It is important to note that the Canadian Bar Association supports the idea of a bill of rights, as do most of the stakeholders who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Canadian Bar Association did not say much about resources, but other organizations did. The bar association spoke more about the constitutionality, or the possible lack thereof, of some aspects of the bill. This does not mean that the entire bill is invalid, but its provisions could potentially be disputed. Even if they are not unconstitutional, they could have some consequences that were not anticipated by the government and that were not anticipated by victims and the groups that represent them.

This opinion was important and should have been considered by the government, but the government did not accept any of the recommendations made by the Canadian Bar Association.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, for all of the work he does for voters in his riding and for all of the work he does in Ottawa.

I would like to hear his opinion on something. Justice Canada released a report in 2011 showing that the estimated total annual cost of crime is over $99 billion, and 83% of that is borne by victims. What does he think of that? That is a lot of money.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette, and I congratulate her on her work in the House and in her riding, which is in the lovely Lanaudière region.

Those numbers do not surprise me. In my former life, I spent two years working for a group involved in youth restorative justice that focused on young offenders. I saw first-hand the impact that crimes had on victims. One element of restorative justice is setting up meetings between young offenders, in this case, and the victims of their crimes to help the young offenders understand the consequences and repercussions of their actions.

I worked with young offenders, but I was still able to see the negative psychological impact that these actions, such as breaking and entering or assault, had on their lives, their families, their personalities and their own individuality. I saw that.

As for the cost of the consequences of crime, that obviously includes the cost of psychological support, which is typically borne solely by the victim. That is not the only cost, but it is the first one that comes to mind in such situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is definitely a step in the right direction. It is a good starting point. However, it is by no means enough. We will support the bill at report stage because it is a starting point. However, it does not go far enough.

I would like to point out that the NDP has always stood up for the rights of victims. If I may, I would like to go back in time. Even in the 1800s, social democratic parties pushed for the rights of workers who were victims of violence and work accidents. The first protection plan for victims of workplace accidents was implemented in Germany, and it was the social democratic parties that worked very hard for that. That said, I will return to a more recent time.

In 1984, Parliament adopted and enacted the Workers Mourning Day Act. The idea was to commemorate the victims of accidents in the workplace. It was work that was done by the NDP at the time, with the collaboration of other members of the House. It was a great victory for the labour movement in this country.

A good friend of mine, Elizabeth Weir, the former leader of the New Democratic Party of New Brunswick, was able to enact very similar legislation in New Brunswick in the year 2000.

Workers' rights are at the heart of the NDP's mandate. For that reason, I certainly have a great interest in this bill, which will extend rights to victims generally.

I do worry about the bill actually bringing forward too few rights. It seems to be focused more on photo opportunities and the beginnings of a sentiment that victims should have more rights. Regrettably, the bill will actually not enact that many rights for our victims.

Ms. Lange, a victim's mother, has stated that “Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth” and that “Rights need to go beyond the criminal process for this bill to even be a bill of rights.”

We did not go far enough. It is just the beginning of a process. I think we need to really develop a true bill of rights and not just one that has the name “bill of rights” and is in fact simply raising awareness that victims should have rights. I think there should perhaps be a better title for this bill.

We need to concern ourselves with the fate of victims. This bill is a start but it is far from adequate. If I could be permitted to speak for a moment about one of the witnesses who testified, I will just say that Ms. Dawn Harvard, the vice-president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said it really well. I will cite her testimony at the justice committee:

Almost half of aboriginal women in Canada live in poverty. This poverty exacerbates the situations of violence, abuse, and addictions, and often, sadly, leads to incarceration. We have heard talk of the missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada....

She went to say, very well I think, that:

Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices, it's a denial of opportunity, and it's a violation of our human dignity.

That speaks to the victims of this country. Regrettably, this bill does not address the daily expressions of being a victim that aboriginal women especially face in this country.

This bill will give victims an opportunity to address some concerns during some of the criminal proceedings, but even then the actual rights that we are affording them are far from adequate.

First nations are a very good example. Who are these first nations supposed to go to in first addressing their requirement to have rights expressed? Who does a victim of violence in a remote community go to? Perhaps it is the local police, but have the local police been sensitized to the plight of aboriginal women in this country? Will the victims feel confident enough to go to their local police officers to lodge their complaints? Will the police officers know enough to say, “Yes, you have a bill of rights. You have rights, and we will be here to defend them.”?

Nothing in the bill has given any of our provincial colleagues the capacity or ability to ensure that those rights are going to be made available. Once again, the current federal government is saying things that are very nice and look good on paper, but it has not put the resources forward to ensure that those rights would actually be expressed in a daily manner.

I, for one, do not believe that people who live in remote communities in this country will even know that the bill exists. I really wish that the government had taken a bit more time and effort to ensure that all the resources were in place to make sure that victims know that they have rights. They have rights today and through this bill they should have more rights in the future, but we need people to actually know that those rights are going to be there.

In poorer communities—and where I live, there are a number of poorer communities—people do not have the understanding that they can spend their hard-earned money to go and see a lawyer who will then inform them of all their rights. Often people simply cannot afford to take that route. Unfortunately, the bill seems not to make that any easier.

The Conservatives have been talking about this bill since 2006, when they came to power. They have been promising to enact a victims bill of rights since 2006. I will congratulate the government for finally, after eight years, putting it down on paper—not just using it as a photo op, but actually trying to have some real, concrete debate on this matter. Unfortunately, I do not think they went nearly as far as they had expected.

The Canadian victims bill of rights does not designate 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 have their rights infringed. As a result, when complaints are directed at provincial or territorial organizations, including police or the crown or even a victims rights organization, they will be processed directly under the laws of the appropriate province or territory. There are no specific funds, none, that have yet been attributed for the implementation of the mechanisms that the bill would provide.

I do not understand how the government expects that things are going to happen without resources being put in place. The Conservatives do this all the time. I have seen it over and over again in the bills that I have seen since 2011 in this place. I scratch my head as to what they think the provinces are going to do with these unfunded mandates that we keep sending to them.

I would like to point out that a lot of interesting testimony was brought to the justice committee. I had the opportunity to sit in on many of those sessions. It brings a tear to one's eye to hear the plight of many victims in this country, and they all had justifiable concerns to bring to the justice committee.

I will speak very briefly on some of the issues that were brought up by the Canadian Bar Association, and I will speak specifically to clause 21 in the bill.

Clause 21 would add a provision requiring prosecutors to take reasonable steps to notify victims of a guilty plea. In this clause, we see that the victims will have the right to be informed if the accused pleads guilty during a trial. The problem is that if there is bargaining and the accused pleads guilty during the plea bargaining or during a court appearance, must the trial be terminated? Is the trial suspended until the victims are notified that the accused will plead guilty? Normally this type of bargaining is done very quickly.

Unfortunately, the bill seems to put the brakes on a very efficient justice system. Once again, not only will the bill cost victims money because they will have to find out about this charter, which has value, but all provincial trials will be more expensive.

If anyone would like to ask a question about this during the time for questions, I would be very happy to answer.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

Ten minutes was not enough time for him. He could have spoken for an hour and gone into even more detail. I want to thank him for that. He spoke a lot about the bill of rights and its shortcomings. He concluded his speech by talking about clause 21.

I would like to hear some more about that, since it is a very important point, especially in terms of the costs associated with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the interest he has shown during the debates on this bill. He asked a very relevant question.

I will talk some more about clause 21. Once again, the government is giving our provincial counterparts a mandate. They will have to implement a bill passed by the House, even though they do not know how much it will cost. The government is not giving them any additional help to implement the changes proposed in the bill.

During a trial, an accused who agrees to plead guilty often negotiates for something. It is often very worthwhile and efficient for the justice system. It happens regularly. Now, that plea bargaining process will be greatly hindered by wording that was clearly poorly chosen. The government is creating a very worthwhile right, but it is not giving any indication of how much it will cost. We need to work with our provincial partners. The government cannot simply continue to pass the burden on to the provinces without expecting them to rebel at some point.

I hope the government will try harder to work with the provinces and give them the financial means needed to carry out the mandates being forced on them. That will make our justice system efficient. This bill needs to contribute to that.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was something else in my colleague's speech that I would like him to explain. He said that the charter was like an empty shell or a sham of a charter.

What does the member think a real victims charter should look like?

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

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

This charter contains some fine words and has good intentions. We have nothing against good intentions, but we also want to see some concrete measures.

Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and said that the charter does not go far enough. No one said it better than the first nations representatives who appeared before the committee, which carefully examined Bill C-32.

We all know very well that victims need to feel reassured. If they reach out to the authorities to assert their rights, they have to feel comfortable and they have to know that we are going to support them and stand up for them, so they can feel safe doing so. Unfortunately, this bill does not seem to reflect what victims go through day to day. We want victims to know that if they call upon the police, they will get help. However, that is not what this bill does. It contains only ambiguous wording that appears to talk about rights, but frankly, what we are passing here is more like the hope that rights will follow.

The bill should have gone much further. I think we have failed as parliamentarians. This bill does not go far enough. It needs to be improved more, but I repeat, this is a start, and we have to start somewhere. It took the government eight years to introduce something of any interest. I congratulate it, but in eight years, I would have done a better job. I do not expect much from this government, so I have to be happy with what I get.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Jean, Veterans.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, it is a first step, and we have to start somewhere when we want to change things in this country. All political parties in this place develop visions and ideas for how to change things. The Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, and Forces et Démocratie all have their ideas about how they want to change things. We develop political policy proposals, usually in the run-up to election campaigns.

In all honesty, I looked at every political party in my youth and growing up. I studied platforms and whatnot, and a lot of times promises are made to Canadians that are not quite fleshed out. All parties do it. They promise things and do not quite flesh out all the details, but they give a vision and a promise and a hope to Canadians, and I think that was the intention of the government when it came up with this bill. It had the hope of making things better for victims. It promised to make things better for victims eight years ago, and it ran on that promise.

Canadians hope that when they support a vision or a promise, there will be follow-through on it. Most of my colleagues today have said, as I will now, that the follow-through has been inadequate. When something is promised to somebody, it has to be followed through on and delivered. It is all well and good to develop nice visions and give hope to people, but follow-through has to take place, details have to be fleshed out, and it has to be backed up with real, concrete goals and objectives and actions. As my other colleague said, New Democrats will support this bill, but we believe there needs to be a more robust policy than what is on offer. There has to be more follow-though.

Earlier in the debate, my colleague from Sudbury mentioned the concept of restorative justice. CSC has a program called the restorative opportunities program. I should explain for members of the House and Canadians who do not quite know what restorative justice is that it is a system of justice that emphasizes healing, hears victims' stories in detail, and incorporates victims into the whole process of justice. It also incorporates people who have committed crimes. The end result, hopefully, is the healing of all parties involved.

As I said, Canada has a program called the restorative opportunities program, but it is a post-sentencing program. It is not fully integrated into our justice system. There are places in the world that offer restorative justice systems that are integrated into every level of their justice systems. Norway is an example. Restorative justice is incorporated into the judicial process itself. Victims' testimonies are not necessarily counted as evidence, but this system allows victims a forum to express themselves and share their experiences as victims as a way of getting to a point of healing.

Society participates in this process, so the process ends up being more inclusive of victims and society at large. Lack of inclusiveness is a complaint about our current retributive system of justice that commonly comes forward from victims. If we look at validators of the idea of better incorporating victims into the justice system, we see that the first victims ombudsman said, “I see nothing here”—meaning this legislation—“that will make the process go speedier and part of that is because the trial process is really not about the victim. It is about the accused.” That was said by the first victims ombudsman.

The idea behind that is that the trial process focuses on the accused and leaves victims out of the process, often as passive observers, when they want to be included in the justice process.

In terms of involving greater society, the l'Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes validates that position. This is what it said about the CSC and this legislation.

They must concern themselves with the fate of all victims and not just those who are already implicated in the justice system.

That points to involving greater society in the process as victims. Sure, people who have crimes committed against them are direct victims, but there are also indirect victims of crime. Those people also deserve to be heard. They have a right to be heard. People who have actually been touched by crime have validated wanting to be more included in the justice system. They are people like Sharlene Lange, the mother of a victim of crime. She said:

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.

What she is pointing to is that unless we include victims in the process from start to finish, and they feel that they are active participants, they will feel that they do not have rights under this system.

The current model we have, the CSC restorative opportunities program, needs work and development. It needs to be better incorporated into the justice system to take victims' rights into consideration. It is a post-sentencing program. It is voluntary, which is understandable, because it is not integrated into the justice system. Victims might not want to participate in a voluntary post-sentencing program that does not have the resources to back up its goals.

The second thing I want to get to is the financial cost to victims in our society. We have seen that the cost to victims is as high as, I believe, $99 billion a year. I am not sure. Perhaps my colleagues would be able to confirm that.

Unfortunately, in our country, when we measure things like economic growth, we use GDP as an economic indicator. Over 400 U.S. economists, including Alan Greenspan, have said that the major weakness of GDP is that it cannot measure social welfare in a society. What they mean by that is that when a bad thing happens, such as a crime, and it is costly to a victim, and a victim has to spend a lot of money because of being a victim of a crime, that registers as positive economic growth. That is problematic.

I hope members and Canadians listening to this debate will start to question that. When we look at indicators of economic growth using an indicator such as GDP, it registers these negative costs to our society. It does not register social welfare. There have been alternative tools proposed, such as the genuine progress indicator.

This is a good first step. It speaks to the hopes and aspirations our party has for increasing victims' rights and including victims in the justice process, but as we have said, it does not quite go far enough. There is not enough follow-up and there is a lot of work to be done.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to restorative justice. I am quite familiar with restorative justice. I was the chair of a justice committee made up of a quasi-judicial group of volunteers who met to deal with young offenders. Restorative justice is a strong and positive way of ensuring that the community receives justice, and more importantly, that victims receive justice. What we need to highlight is that restorative justice is not something that can be applied universally. It is something that is effective in certain types of crime but not in all crime. However, it is something that communities and different levels of government, because in this case, the provincial government plays a very strong role, need to promote having more of.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on how important it is that the provinces work with Ottawa to ensure that there is more restorative justice taking place, because then everyone wins: the communities, the victims, and so forth.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that there has to be greater dialogue between the federal government and the provinces. One of the current government's weaknesses is that it does not have enough collaboration with the provinces.

I would like to have spoken about restorative justice at greater length. I do not think 10 minutes would have done it justice when I had to address the bill as well.

It is true that the Canadian model is not really a universal model. That is why I pointed to places like Norway, where it is incorporated into the actual process of justice rather than being an add-on in a largely retributive system. There have been great successes toward healing in aboriginal communities with the use of the restorative justice model.

I would love to work with my hon. colleague in the future and discuss the opportunities we have as a country to look at this model of justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first proposal for victims' rights support came in 1996. There have been nine years of this government with no action to date, and it was 10 years for the previous government. It has been close to 20 years with no real, substantive action.

In the presentation of this bill, there is no real move for funding for the kind of support needed to properly implement it. Even when we get this to committee and work on it, we not only have to have a plan but we need to have budgetary measures to ensure that we can deliver on that plan. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to wax eloquent on this, but I believe that the problem of the past 30 years in terms of getting actual robust, concrete, detailed policy has been the centralization of power in the Prime Minister's office. That is a problem generally. Until we deal with that issue, we will not get the policy solutions we need, simply because cabinet cannot act independently enough of the Prime Minister's office to come up with policy that makes sense, that is based on research, and that looks at best practices internationally. Until we take the power out of that office, we will continue to have politically motivated legislation that is not backed up by the proper follow-through.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak once again to the government's bill to create a Canadian victims bill of rights. This is very important matter to victims and to all Canadians.

The last time I spoke I talked about the NDP's concerns about the limitations of this bill of rights. I agree that it is important to do something about the justice system. 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. Still, when we speak of victims' rights, we must also ask what victims need in the context of the healing process.

In our opinion, we must truly place victims at the centre of the justice system. They must feel protected, not only physically, but also with respect to their right to be informed, to be heard and to be supported before, during and after legal proceedings.

The government's fine press conferences on this bill will not provide such security to victims. Concrete measures are required, as is co-operation with the provinces. Adequate funding must be provided for the programs and the organizations that work with victims every day. We must consider the victims' families. As I said this fall in my speech regarding the government's bill on sex offenders, families are often seriously shaken up when those close to them are involved in tragic incidents.

At that time, I had had a chance to speak to Mr. Michaud, the director of the Centre d'intervention en abus sexuels pour la famille, an organization that is doing outstanding work in my riding. He told me that family members often feel helpless and are sometimes unable to help the victim at the same time as they are dealing with this trauma themselves.

We know that the presence of a supportive network is essential in order for victims of crime to be able to move on with their lives. Thus, it is important for us to consider the resources and support we can provide to such a network.

I would also point out that women are particularly affected by crime. According to police statistics compiled by Statistics Canada, nearly 174,000 women were victims of crime in 2011 alone.

According to that study, women are three times more likely to be criminally harassed than men. In Canada, in a system where women are increasingly involved in everything and are building their careers, it is very sad to see that women face so much crime and harassment.

Aboriginal women are also affected by crime: 75% of aboriginal girls under the age of 18 have been victims of sexual assault, according to data reported by Radio-Canada. That is unacceptable. However, only one sexual assault in 10 is reported to the police.

That shows women's lack of confidence in our justice system's ability to protect them. Then there are the women who have been murdered or who have disappeared without anyone finding the perpetrators. It is all very sad. Sometimes there is no investigation and the police have trouble tackling this problem.

I will quote some of the comments Teresa Edwards from the Native Women's Association of Canada made on Bill C-32 at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

We have a long way to go, and I really hope this legislation is not just another piece of paper that the government can point to and say it's doing something about victimization. We really need to translate that into action. We're always talking about taking action. I do want to see action. I want to see results, and I want to see measured, concrete steps of how it's actually going to impact the lives of aboriginal women victims, so that we don't have to keep coming here.

It is not a problem that is faced only by aboriginal women. According to author Josée Néron, 50% of Canadian women have experienced violence at least once in their life and only 14% of them filed a complaint. That is the problem: women do not feel confident enough to lodge a complaint. They are afraid of the result; they are afraid that their complaints will not be taken seriously, and this is a major problem in our society.

I wonder how this bill will help Canadian women regain their confidence in the Canadian justice system.

We in the NDP will be supporting this bill because we believe it is a starting point. However, it does not live up to the expectations created by the Conservatives since 2006. Since 2006, this government has been promising us a bill that will really be a step forward, as well as being proactive with regard to violence against women. This is not really reflected in this bill. In fact, we are going to support it, but as I was saying, it does not live up to the expectations of victims or reflect what has been said over the years.

Adopting principles in a charter is an important step, but it must be accompanied by concrete measures if it is to have a real impact. The NDP put forward a number of amendments in this regard, but as usual, the Conservatives rejected them and put their own partisan interests ahead of the interests of Canadians and victims, as I said before.

Even worse, the recommendations made by a number of victims' associations, experts and professionals who testified in committee were simply ignored. The government must not forget that our primary concern is to respond to the real needs of victims. It is clear that this objective has been jeopardized by the fact that the bill creates no legal obligation for stakeholders in the justice system to implement these rights.

It is just as worrisome to note that this bill omits the financial resources that will be necessary for its implementation. However, as the first ombudsman for victims of crime Steve Sullivan said, resources are the key element; I mentioned this at the beginning of my speech. Resources, training and prevention are necessary and indispensable to the success of such a bill. This must not be forgotten. We must ensure that all levels are involved in the implementation of the bill, as well as in providing the necessary resources and budgets for its implementation. If we do not devote the necessary resources to implementing the principles of the bill of rights, we run the risk that it will be nothing but an empty shell, a decorative element in the Conservative Party’s advertising in the next election.

As I was saying, the NDP will be supporting the main motion, because we think that, after years of talking about it, it is time to move forward. However, the government must keep in mind that this is a starting point, not an end point. This is very important.

I would like to mention that this is the first anniversary of the death of someone who was killed last year in my riding, and we do still not know who committed the offence. This is important. I am just giving one example, but there are others. Thousands of people do not report what happened or have simply been victims; we never find out who is guilty and justice cannot be done.

As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to ask ourselves how we can more fully meet our responsibilities towards victims of crime and their families.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

In her speech, she talked about concrete measures. The NDP is determined to ensure that victims of crime get all of the support they need.

Should the government invest in services for victims and crime prevention to keep our communities safe?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I touched on that in my presentation. That is the key to success. The government can pass any bill it wants—it can pass tonnes of bills—but if it does not provide the resources to ensure proper implementation, those bills are nothing but empty shells.

That is so unfortunate because this is a subject that has been discussed from every perspective lately. We have to think of the victims of violence and crime who do not report because they do not have faith in the system. If we want to succeed, it is very important to show leadership and allocate resources to prevent crime and to implement and follow up on the bill.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is the vision of an NDP government? Can my colleague explain our vision with respect to victims' rights?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the same point once again. We believe that when we pass a law, we must absolutely allocate resources to go along with it. We also need prevention and awareness. The NDP believes that this is the key to success.

Our approach is very focused on social issues and assistance for women. The number of women in our caucus shows that young women believe in our party and believe that we can achieve things for women. It is very important, for all women in general, that we take a leadership role.

Our party is very clear: we need to allocate the necessary resources to prevent crime. We cannot simply pass a bill that punishes offenders, nor can we allow offenders to be released once they have served their sentence to reintegrate into society without any assistance. We need to ensure that they understand what they did and we need to ensure that it will not happen again.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, victims incur billions of dollars in expenses. We often hear the Conservatives say that they support victims' rights. They always accuse us of supporting criminals' rights.

However, I saw a contract for cable television in Canadian prisons worth about $2 billion a year. The Conservatives are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Could my colleague talk about the financial resources allocated to victims?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is not really any help or financial resources for victims.

I would like to come back to a point the hon. member made with regard to the costs associated with people in prison or detention centres who then find themselves back in society without any help to reintegrate. We need to compare that cost with what it would cost to prevent instead of penalize. That is what is important. It is crucial to have a just society where everyone feels safe, instead of having people being released from prison without any help to reintegrate, without any means or resources to find work and reintegrate into society. Moreover, these people do not really understand what they did wrong because they were not helped through the process.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after innumerable photo ops and press conferences, the Conservatives are finally presenting us with their draft Canadian victims bill of rights. They have been talking about it for eight years now, and in all honesty, I find it somewhat disappointing that we have ended up with an incomplete bill that has no mechanism for enforcement and no operating budget.

That said, I am prepared to support the main motion at report stage, because I want to help victims of crime. I would like us to do more, particularly after eight years of delay by the Conservatives, but every step towards improving matters for victims of crime is worth taking.

Throughout the committee deliberations on Bill C-32, my NDP colleagues were guided by a simple principle: making sure that the Canadian victims bill of rights was a good fit with the Canadian justice system and met victims’ expectations. I fully subscribe to this principle, because if the bill of rights does not fit anywhere and does not respond to what victims told us, it becomes purely symbolic and ultimately disconnected altogether from reality.

The bill is a valid response to some recommendations by victims, and that is worth pointing out. For example, the bill of rights expands the definition of “victim of crime” and codifies victims’ rights to information, protection, participation and restitution. On the other hand, a problem arises when we see that the bill of rights places no legal obligation on the other participants in the justice system. Why raise the expectations of victims, only to disappoint them if the provisions of the bill of rights do not apply?

The most practical recourse provided for victims of crime relates to a complaint mechanism within federal departments and agencies that play role in the justice system when victims’ rights have been violated. This is disappointing, to say the least. Victims have been waiting eight years for a real resolution resulting from a desire to provide greater social justice. Instead, they get a department store-style complaint office. What is more, the complaint counter at Canadian Tire is better funded than the one provided for in the bill of rights.

No funding is currently allocated for the complaint mechanism. Once again, this is disappointing, to say the least. It is not surprising that we hear such negative reactions from those who supported this initiative. One of them is Frank Addario, a lawyer who specializes in criminal law. He asserts that:

It's cynicism masquerading as policy...We did not need a new law for government to tell itself that it should communicate with victims about criminal cases.

Mr. Addario is not wrong, if we consider the narrow scope of the other measures in the bill of rights.

Some go further and claim that the Conservatives have deceived victims of crime in order to score political points. Clayton Ruby, a criminal law expert, said:

The [bill] is an example of a community that has sold itself to the Conservatives for a mess of porridge...They need rehabilitative programs and services, and compensation from the government, and they've dropped all those expensive demands in favour of shallow symbolism.

Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, agrees. He says that the government should have given victims of crime the right to appear in court and sue the government if their rights are not respected. Mr. Sullivan said that for now, all this really does is bring things in line with provincial laws. He sees nothing in this bill that would speed up the process, and that is in part because the legal process is far more concerned with the accused than the victim.

As an aside, some people in my family were victims of a home invasion at gunpoint. They had young children and they had to fend for themselves to get services.

I cannot make it any clearer. Victims are marginalized by our system. Unfortunately, this bill will not make much of a difference. That is too bad.

According to the Department of Justice, the annual cost of crime in Canada is estimated to be more than $99 billion . That is a lot of money. It is sad to learn that 83% of that amount is borne by victims of crime.

As I mentioned earlier, members of my family have had to look after themselves and we supported them in their misfortune. The reality is that it is expensive. Without money, nothing will be resolved.

The Conservatives have often invested in prisons, which is the same as investing in crime, because they have reduced prevention and victim services. That is a funny way to do things. Moreover, they have expanded the women's prison in the riding of Joliette.

They have cut key programs for some victims, such as the Indian residential schools resolution health support program. In committee, the Conservatives knowingly disregarded the recommendations of many victims and victims advocacy groups. Furthermore, as is their custom, the Conservatives rejected the NDP amendments that would better reflect the recommendations of victims and experts.

I just want to point out that the NDP was the only party that put forward substantive amendments. The only real thing we managed to get passed was an amendment requiring the government to review the effects of the bill of rights after two years. The Conservatives agreed to that review, but only after five years.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that NDP MPs have always stood up for victims' rights and we will continue to fight every day to ensure that victims' services receive better funding across the country. I will therefore support the main motion at report stage, but I think we need to do much more for victims.

I have fought for 40 years for women's rights in Joliette, and aboriginals are on my list of priorities. I would like to conclude with the words of Teresa Edwards of the Native Women's Association of Canada:

We have a long way to go, and I really hope this legislation is not just another piece of paper that the government can point to and say it's doing something about victimization. We really need to translate that into action.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech. She did a good job of explaining this bill's shortcomings.

Even though this is more symbolic than anything, the government has to walk the talk. Symbols are all well and good, but we need concrete measures.

Having fought for women, can the member tell us a bit more about the kind of concrete measures we need? Why should the government give people more than just hollow symbolism?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

Indeed, we need to support women, and yes, the member is right, I have always worked to improve the status of women. However, this is also about the status of men, since we live in a society.

We asked ourselves many questions. I am still a member of Quebec's Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale. A few days ago we all wore white ribbons on behalf of a local branch of AFEAS to remind people that it is always women who are the victims.

Women always seem to be the victims because of a tradition that involves women being told to keep quiet unless they know what they are talking about. Women are still being repressed somewhat, even in today's society

When I saw that so many women had been elected to the NDP during the 2011 election, regardless of their age or social status, it felt like a bit of reward for all my hard work. I say “reward” but I would actually prefer for women to be able to one day defend themselves and adopt legislation that gives them the same protections as men.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the big reward for us all is my colleague, who is such a fine member. She is a reward for the entire House and for all Canadians. I find all of her speeches very relevant.

The question I have for her has to do with victims of crime and the related costs to society, which are in the billions of dollars.

Does my colleague think that the government's response to the cost is enough to meet the needs?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so.

The costs are extremely high, and 83% of those costs are borne by victims. They need help from the government.

As I said earlier, some of my family members went through this a few decades ago. Someone broke into their home and held a gun to their heads, including the children. However, they did not get any kind of assistance afterwards. They were told to sort it out on their own and to talk to their doctor. They had to move because they worried that they would be victimized again.

The government must absolutely help victims. Yes, offenders need help, but victims do as well, and unfortunately they are left out in the cold.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the chance to contribute to this debate on Bill C-32, the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I will be focusing mostly on opportunities lost with this bill. We do know that the government promised a victims bill of rights almost a decade ago, at least from 2006 until now. In the end, we end up with a bill that is quite formalistic in that it focuses extensively on the justice system, the criminal legal proceedings side of things.

It is not as if the provisions are worthless; the access of victims to a greater role in some aspects of the criminal justice process is indeed welcome. However, beyond that, looking at what crime really involves and what it does to victims seems to have been lost in the shuffle, and victims include family members, neighbours, and the people who are close to people who suffer because of a serious crime.

It seems as if the government has chosen to go a very legalistic route and not tackle victims' rights as effective rights, as non-illusory rights, as rights that are held by real people who suffer in the real world.

It is not as if there were not several victims who came in as witnesses, as well as associations representing them, to speak to these issues during the committee process and also during some of the consultations the government engaged in for a very short period. However, they seem to have been ignored, by and large.

I have a personal experience with ignoring such information. In tandem with Rev. Sky Starr of the Out of Bounds organization in Toronto, Joan Howard, an activist from my riding who lost her son to gun violence a decade ago, and Prof. Bailey from Ryerson, we organized a seminar here on the Hill intended to inform interested MPs and staff members on the question of grief and trauma when it comes to the victims of crime, especially violent crime and maybe most especially gun violence.

It was an extremely good seminar, and I was delighted to know that a representative from the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister did come and seemed to be highly engaged, and did understand what he was hearing about the need for support for grassroots, on-the-ground organizations that are actually delivering the services to many victims' family members, in cities like Toronto and in my riding of Toronto—Danforth.

However, nothing that came out of the insights from that seminar held here on the Hill appear to have penetrated this bill. That seems to be the experience that is a generalized one for those looking for a more holistic, wide-ranging understanding of what it is to assist victims of serious crime.

I have just one other example. There is a mechanism, but nobody knows quite how it is going to work, in the bill of rights. It is a rather general mechanism to file complaints with various federal departments and agencies if victims feel they are not getting the service they are owed, given the rights that are found in various pieces of legislation.

The victims bill of rights recognizes that it should be possible to bring the same kind of complaints in provincial jurisdiction, but no specific funds have been attributed to making such a complaint mechanism or series of mechanisms effective. We can tell right from the beginning that, without allocating such funds through budgeting, it is almost a gesture without meaning. These things do not work on their own.

It also reflects something the government tends to want to do a lot, which is to download costs onto the provinces wherever possible. When I was on the justice committee working on a bill dealing with surcharges that perpetrators would have to pay to victims as part of their sentence, I learned that the government members on the committee had two primary philosophies with respect to how victim support services would be paid for. One was through the perpetrators themselves, most of whom do not have deep pockets, to put it mildly. The other was through the provinces.

The idea that there is an extended responsibility of the federal government, through its criminal law jurisdiction, to fund through the spending power support programs across the country and the provinces, or at minimum work co-operatively with the provinces to get away from the patchwork quilt of services that now exist for supporting victims, for example for ongoing trauma, grief and other kinds of consequences of crime, seems to be well outside, almost alien to, the philosophy of the government.

All this is to say that we are disappointed. I at least am very disappointed that nothing resembling a contribution through the victims bill of rights, with a parallel commitment through the budgetary process to real support and real processes that are effectively funded, is found in this bill.

I would like to quote from l'Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, which has a very interesting insight on exactly this point. It says, “Strengthening victims' rights in criminal proceedings is of course necessary”. We are not second-guessing that either. It goes on to say, “But, it is important not to obscure their social rights, so the rights that allow them to access assistance, compensation and programs, to help them deal with the various repercussions of the crime. Governments have a responsibility to recognize victims' rights, but also to help them exercise those rights. They must concern themselves with the fate of all victims, and not just those who are already implicated in the justice system”.

Obviously, there is always a preventative component to this kind of philosophy, but there is also the question of responsibility for those who are sideswiped by crime: family members, neighbours, somebody who may just happen to be witnessing.

If there is any group of people who should understand how quickly and viscerally violence can impact on our lives, it would be MPs who were exposed to what happened on October 22. In the real world, we were not actually all that much at threat, it turns out. However, the fact of not knowing, the stress of not knowing and the trauma that was produced among some here in this building on that day and among family members not knowing what would happen should be something that we can all use productively to extrapolate to what it is to actually be a family member, friend, loved one, neighbour or witness to a violent crime in the other real world outside of the House.

I would like to end by paying tribute to, and remembering, people who, on this issue of how to think about victims and real support for victims, have been my mentors.

I think of Joan Howard who lost her son, Kempton Howard, 10 years ago. To this day she is still struggling with that loss, but she also learned that one of the pathways she could go down was to help other people with the grief that they suffered when they also lost a loved one, particularly a child, to gun violence. I salute Joan Howard for helping me learn more about the particular harm that gun violence can do.

Reverend Sky Starr has been recognized as a pioneer for social activism by CBC, one of the top 50 in a list that CBC produced, as a pioneer in grief counselling. She runs an organization called “Out of Bounds”. I was there just the other night for an annual event recognizing and offering support to mothers in particular who have lost children in the city of Toronto to gun violence. With her leadership, the very notion that grief counselling has to be put front and centre in the kinds of psychological counselling services needed for victims has been advanced.

I also think of Rod Cohen who runs Blake-Boultbee Youth Outreach Services, a counselling service in Toronto—Danforth. The work he has done with at-risk family and youth in situations that often involve trauma, at minimum high degrees of stress, because of proximity to crime as one factor is notable.

I end by noting that we lost recently in Toronto—Danforth, Nahom Berhane, an outstanding young member in Toronto of the Eritrean Canadian community. While seeking to assist somebody else, he was shot down on the Danforth, one more reflection of how guns, short guns let us say, in the city of Toronto remain a plague.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for his comments. Bringing this back to the families and the victims who are impacted by crime brings home to all Canadians the importance of getting this type of legislation right.

Families that have gone through losing a family member in particular have been deeply hurt and victimized. Some of those families get through and deal with that grief and then become advocates to try to make the system better for future victims. I do not know if there is any effort made by citizens in this country that is more admirable in that they have had to deal with their personal loss while advocating for better public policy.

My question is very specific and is about what the bill lacks, because I think this is a missed opportunity in some ways. It is not as if we will revisit this type of legislation every year. It has been eight years since the promise from the Conservatives to bring forward this legislation. We finally have it now, so getting it right seems important.

My question is about resources, because we have heard from victims groups before that to properly incorporate victims into the justice system, there needs to be the ability to fund the types of services they will need: the counselling, the access to legal advocacy, and the ability to be in the court system properly.

My friend is a learned scholar and knows the legal system well. A piece of legislation like this, for all its good intentions, without any financial support in it, is worrisome to me in terms of what experience those families will have in the future as they try to approach the justice system and redress some of the faults within our criminal justice system as they exist right now.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent series of comments from my colleague.

I think it is true that even on their own terms in the bill, all of the access points, some of them just reminding us of stuff that already exists in the legal system for victims in criminal law proceedings, will end up creating more frustration than anything else if there are not effective resources to assist victims and victims families in participating in the system in the way that supposedly is envisaged by the bill.

Absent provincial governments coming along and picking up the slack, which is often what this government seems to want to happen in other areas, and saying that they will restructure our legal aid system, despite the fact that they are in a financial crunch, in order to pick up on the victims bill of rights, there is nothing the federal government has done to assist with the level of resource provision that is necessary.

I would also note that the organizations I referred to earlier, Out of Bounds and the Blake Boultbee Youth Outreach Counselling Services, are exactly the kind of organizations that year by year are scrambling to find resources and are using grant money, and very minimally, money from government, to do amazing value-added counselling for the victims of crime. Somehow or other in our system, those kinds of organizations largely fall through the cracks, but nothing in this victims bill of rights seeks to even recognize that, let alone address it.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague pointed out wonderful facts and evidence and the fact that these groups are not sufficiently funded. They have unstable funding from year to year, and they cannot really plan for the long-term goals they have.

I think this legislation is just evidence of when facts and evidence get in the way of politics. It has been eight years. The Conservatives want to present themselves as protecting the victims, but it upends their black and white picture of the world. They all of a sudden find that this will be costly. This will cost taxpayers money. It conflicts with their idea that the market can regulate all social ills, except that in this particular instance, a market-based solution is inapplicable.

Could my hon. colleague describe how sometimes Langevin Block comes up with these politically motivated pieces of legislation with nothing to back them up?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an extended colleague I have worked with, or have been associated with, a leading criminal defence lawyer from Toronto, Frank Addario, says it well. I am sorry to put it as harshly as he did, but he is correct. He says, “It's cynicism masquerading as policy.”

I basically think that unless this victims bill of rights is used as a platform for future law-making that takes serious account of everything we have been discussing so far here today, it will end up being mostly symbolic and, possibly, a major contribution to the further frustration and alienation of victims, and not a source of assistance for them.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate and go to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I will let him know that there are only about three and a half minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders, but he can at least get started. He will have the remaining time, of course, when the House gets back to debate on the question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Three and a half minutes, for some of us who are a bit more verbose, is just getting warmed up. Just saying hello where I come from in the northwest takes well more than three and a half minutes. However, in this particular case I can at least put a couple of important points on the table.

First, I would like to say from listening to the debate this afternoon that it has mostly been New Democrats who have been carrying the debate on Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain acts.

I am so impressed by my colleagues on this side. They have vast experience, both from the legal profession, as in the case of my friend from Toronto—Danforth, and many from their personal experiences as New Democrat MPs, having taken the time to sit with the families of those who have been hurt to understand that victims' rights is about the stories of people who have been impacted by an injustice, and that when we are describing the policies of the day they are not in cold black and white as prescribed in legal notes put forward in bills such as this one.

To summarize, New Democrats will be supporting the bill because it is a small step forward. As was mentioned earlier, it is a failed opportunity because it over-promises and under-delivers, as is so often the case when we look at Conservative legislation. If only the title of the bill matched the reality of what is contained within the bill, then we would be a great deal more satisfied, simply because a bill of rights is such an important phraseology for a place like a parliament, implying that the piece of legislation would contain within it rights that people can then hold up and defend their interests in a court of law and when dealing with the judicial system at large.

The challenge we see here is on two fronts. It is a challenge legislatively speaking, in that this bill is desperately lacking in ability to affect laws and compel certain judicial processes to deal with victims; and it is also a challenge on the money side, in terms of the ability to spend sufficient funds to allow victims to have services they will require to get through the system. As we know, we have an excellent justice system, an excellent judiciary, but sometimes it is not completely accessible due to people's insufficient means. Lower-income families will need support, and we do not find it acceptable for the Conservatives to simply pass the buck down to the provinces and then try to take credit.

The last thing I will say is that I have sat at the kitchen tables of families who have suffered enormous loss, the loss of a son or a daughter, from a crime. To try to find some level of understanding and compassion for what they have gone through is difficult, and I am not sure I will ever be able to do that.

What I can appreciate and honour is that those families remain so dedicated to the memory of their loved one, be it a family member, a son, a daughter, a husband, or a wife, and continue to try to make the system better, even in the midst of their grief.

It would be understandable if they chose not to re-engage with the system whatsoever, but they choose, instead, to come to us, as members of Parliament. The least we can do is to honour the memory of those they have lost by bringing in legislation that would actually make the world a better place for victims.

While we are supporting the bill, we do believe the government completely shortchanged those interests of honouring and respecting those values and views.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have six and a half minutes remaining in the time for his remarks when the House resumes debate on the question.

It now being 5:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from December 11, 2014, consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak at report stage today in support of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. This bill would change how victims are to be treated by the criminal justice and correction systems in Canada. It acknowledges their suffering and recognizes that they too have rights that must be respected.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard testimony from numerous witnesses who described the importance of this legislation. Many shared their own difficult stories of victimization and expressed their appreciation for the changes that the Canadian victims bill of rights would bring to other victims who will follow.

The committee also heard from those who provide victims with much needed services. They too offered their support for the bill, explaining that the rights contained in the Canadian victims bill of rights and the accompanying amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would improve the experiences of victims.

The victims bill of rights presents a completely new approach for victims of crime in Canada. There have been many questions about how the bill would actually work and how it would be implemented. This is understandable given its transformative nature.

I would like to take the opportunity today to address three issues that were the subject of discussions at the standing committee: the definition of victim, the steps that we will take to ensure awareness of the rights created in Bill C-32, and the enforceability of those rights.

Regarding the definition of a victim in Bill C-32, the committee heard from witnesses who felt that the definition was overly broad, as well as those who felt that it was not sufficiently inclusive. Concern has been expressed about how a definition of victim in federal legislation would co-exist with the definitions of victim found in provincial and territorial victim legislation. We also heard questions about why the bill contains more than one definition of victim and what each purports to do.

As members will know, Bill C-32 includes the new Canadian victims bill of rights and proposes amendments to four federal statutes. The Canadian victims bill of rights portion of Bill C-32 includes a broad definition of victim. This definition recognizes the various kinds of harm that an individual may suffer as a result of an offence, even if the offence were not committed against him or her personally. The definition acknowledges that individuals other than the direct victim can be victims of an offence. All the rights included in the Canadian victims bill of rights can be exercised by a direct victim, as well as others who have suffered harm, such as family members.

The bill would also amend the definition of victim in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that those definitions align with the definition of victim in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The first part of the proposed definition in the Criminal Code recognizes the same forms of harm that a victim of an offence may suffer as the Canadian victims bill of rights does. Under this part of the definition, only a person who has had an offence committed against him or her is a victim for the purposes of most Criminal Code provisions.

The second part of the Criminal Code definition includes individuals other than the direct victim for the purposes of certain Criminal Code provisions, including the victim impact statement provisions. This is consistent with established case law that recognizes secondary victims for the purpose of these provisions.

The Canadian victims bill of rights would not apply to Canadians who are victims of offences committed outside of Canada, over which Canada is not exerting extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is because the rights under the Canadian victims bill of rights all relate to the various stages of the Canadian criminal justice process, from the investigation and prosecution of an offence through to the conditional release process. For example, a victim's right to present a victim impact statement, to have a court consider making a restitution order against an offender, or to request information about an offender can only apply to offences processed through the Canadian criminal and corrections system. It is not possible for Canada to extend those rights to people or to criminal justice processes within another country's jurisdiction.

We have also heard concerns about differences between the definition of victim proposed in the Canadian victims bill of rights and those found in provincial and territorial legislation. Each province and territory has enacted its own victims of crime legislation with its own definition of victim. Some provinces and territories have multiple definitions for various purposes, such as eligibility for specific services or financial benefits programs. I note that this problem of various definitions of victim did not arise with Bill C-32 but is a result of the evolution of victims services in each jurisdiction.

It is simply not possible to have one definition of victim at the federal level that would incorporate absolutely all the different definitions of victim that exist at the provincial and territorial levels. Rather, the bill seeks to create a definition that is inclusive and that recognizes all the different forms of harm that victims may suffer as a result of an offence. These include physical or emotional harm, property damage, and economic loss. Most provincial and territorial definitions include similar elements in their definitions.

I will now turn to the issue of ensuring that victims are able to exercise their rights under the act.

The justice committee heard from witnesses who questioned how victims would be made aware of their new rights under the act. This is a very fair question. All the rights in the world will not benefit victims if they do not know about them.

A Government of Canada website will be developed making information on the Canadian victims bill of rights available to all Canadians. During last year's consultations, numerous stakeholders stressed the importance of a one-stop shop for victims to access information. The Government of Canada website will meet that need.

The committee also heard from several aboriginal groups that are concerned that aboriginal victims would not be able to exercise their rights in the same way as other victims. They noted the disproportionate impact of factors such as poverty, marginalization, and lack of safe housing for aboriginal victims and explained that they would therefore need extra support in order to fully exercise their rights in a Canadian victims bill of rights.

The government recognizes that every victim is different and has different needs. That is why budget 2014 committed to providing funding to the provinces and territories to assist with the implementation of the bill. The government recognizes that the provinces and territories will play a crucial role in the effective implementation of the bill and has been working with them through various fora—such as the meetings of the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety—to address the implementation issues

We need to continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights brings about the changes in the criminal justice and corrections systems that we have promised victims.

I will turn now to the issue of enforceability.

Some have criticized Bill C-32 as nothing more than a statement of principle because they believe the enshrined rights to be unenforceable. This is simply not true.

The victims bill of rights includes a remedial scheme to address an infringement or denial of a victim's rights under the act. This is what distinguishes Bill C-32 from many provincial or territorial victims acts that have been found to be just statements of principle. Under Bill C-32, every federal department, agency, or body involved in the criminal justice system would be required to have a complaints mechanism in place that would review complaints and make recommendations to remedy any infringement or denial of a victim's rights under the act, and they would be required to inform victims of those recommendations. If victims were not satisfied with the recommendations made by the department, agency, or body, they could then raise the issue with an oversight agency where one exists, such as the RCMP public complaints commission. If no oversight body exists for a particular department, agency, or body, a victim could seek the assistance of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, whose mandate includes reviewing concerns regarding noncompliance with legislation or established policies.

Complaints regarding a provincial or territorial agency, including police, the crown, or victim services, would be addressed in accordance with the applicable provincial or territorial legislation. In order to improve the remedies available to victims, the government will provide a limited amount of funding through the victims fund for provinces and territories to enhance or establish complaint bodies for victims of crime.

I hope members of all parties will join me in supporting the victims bill of rights to ensure that victims of crime in Canada receive the recognition and protection that they deserve.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from the member opposite. I wonder why the government decided not to entertain some of the fairly important and well-meaning amendments that were presented by our caucus at committee stage, particularly as they related, in a couple of instances, to clauses requiring the victim to make a request in order to receive certain important information.

The wording says that the victim has to request it. We tried to change it to say that the victim has the right to receive this information. I wonder why the government did not see fit to make some of those important changes, recognizing that victims do have the right to this information. If they do not receive the education on what their rights are, then they will not be able to request this important information.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee also heard from prosecutors that they would be overburdened with all the requests.

I would also point out that the Canadian victims bill of rights would enshrine a victim's right to receive, on request, general information. That is information regarding the criminal justice system and the role for victims. It would also make sure they were informed about the available victim services and programs, including the restorative justice programs. They would also have the right to make a complaint if they felt their rights had been infringed upon.

There is a lot of information-sharing. There would notification about release of the offender if the offender was being conditionally released. There are a lot of great opportunities here.

I know the NDP brought forward ideas, but we also wanted to make sure we kept a very strong bill, one that was not watered down. We wanted to make sure the bill spoke to the issues that were brought forward to the committee as well as during the consultation process when the bill was drafted by the department. Victims were telling us right across the country in our consultations that this is what they wanted to see in the bill.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague make reference to passing a bill that is not watered down. I noticed something when I read the bill. Bill C-32 states that victims may have access to a complaints mechanism, but it does not set out a specific amount for that and no compensation amount is mentioned.

In fact, I wonder how the complaints process will be effective and could satisfy the requests made by the victims.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member listened closely to my speech, because in it I talked about how that was an issue that came forward. We made sure in budget 2014 that there was funding available to the provinces to ensure that there was a mechanism for complaints at the provincial level.

We also enshrined the complaint process in federal departments. In the case that there is not a complaint process in place, we have the victims ombudsman to ensure that victims' rights are protected and are being enforced by the various government agencies at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity because I am not on the committee and did not have an opportunity to follow the bill at that stage. However, I am interested in the issue. I will explain my support for this issue when I get up to speak in a moment, but I do have a question.

There is no question that in many ways this is a framework document that frames the rights of victims across the country, but a lot of the commensurate responsibilities and costs are going to be devolved to the provinces. The provinces will have to step up as a result of a number of these provisions.

I know that at least in one case, if not in others, Attorneys General have asked for some time to be set aside for implementation. In one case it was six months, and we introduced an amendment at committee to give those provincial jurisdictions the opportunity to get ready for the impact of the bill when it comes into effect.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they have had the dialogue already through the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings. The justice committee did ask the Attorneys General from across Canada to appear, and only one province did appear. The overwhelming message from that province, as well as all justice ministers across the country, was that they have no problem with this legislation or with making sure the services are in place and are provided for victims.

I also want to say that the reason I am so interested in this is that I have had the opportunity to talk to victims of crime, such as Sharon Rosenfeldt, whom I have dealt with in the past. Her son was brutalized and murdered by Clifford Olson. We want to make sure that these types of families do not have to go through the same horror that she and her husband experienced attending these ongoing Parole Board hearings. They never received any restitution and never had their rights respected. We want to stand up for families such as hers and for others in the future as well.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to this bill. As I indicated, I think this is an important bill and an important step forward.

It is interesting that one of the thoughts provided for me in notes provided by members of our caucus is that Bill C-32 would codify long-used practices related to such things as keeping victims informed of the status of prosecution, ensuring that protection and security are available for the victims, and allowing victims to participate in sentencing and parole hearings. It would turn them into rights. What was particularly important for me was the reference that it would involve codifying long-used practices, and I will tell members why.

In 1989, my wife was hired by the Government of Nova Scotia to help set up a victim services division within the Department of Justice. It was to be built up from scratch, along with the systems to facilitate programs that would exist from one end of the province to the other, as a recognition that victims had an important role to play within the system and that they needed to be provided with the support and, in some cases, the resources and education to make sure that their rights were recognized and upheld.

Those were the early days of the rights of victims being increasingly recognized within the judicial system and process in Canada. In those days, certainly in Nova Scotia, I recall that it was often a question of finding room for victims separate from the accused within the court. It was a question of finding specific spots that victims could call their own, places they could go to be separate from the accused and receive support from justice officials at that time. That was often how basic it was in those beginning stages of trying to ensure that those services were available. We have come some distance, and that is only a good thing.

The bill would further extend a number of rights to victims and their family members. They or a spouse, dependant, or guardian mandated to act on their behalf would be able to demand to be informed about the resources available to them in the criminal justice system. They could also request information on the status of an investigation and prosecution, make a victim impact statement, apply for a publication ban in cases involving young victims, obtain information about the convicted parties, and gain restitution from the convicted.

As I said, this is an important initial step by the federal government to establish this framework, this charter, to clearly indicate the rights of victims and the responsibility of the justice system to recognize those rights.

Why is this bill important? It recognizes the impact that crimes can have on individuals, their families, and their communities, and it would give them better access to information, tools, and services.

The parliamentary secretary spoke to that particular point when he was up earlier. He talked about how important and urgent he thinks it is, and he named some victims. We all, in our constituencies, have dealt with families and victims of crime. We have all seen the damage that can be done through the criminal justice system.

That is one reason why I was so disappointed the government brought forward time allocation on this bill. It has only been in the House for three hours up to this point, and it is being limited. I think we may end up dealing with this for a total of eight hours. There are a lot of members on all sides of the House who want to speak to how important the bill is to victims in their constituencies, to families and others who have been involved in these issues and are pleased to see Parliament moving forward on this. I am pleased to see this moving forward in the House, but disappointed that it has taken eight years for it to get to this stage.

The government clearly has been dragging its feet. Some would say, especially those on the other side, that it has taken so long because the government has been consulting. Surely, when we finally have legislation in this place, all members of the House who have been duly elected by their constituents, whether in they are in a recognized party or not, should have an opportunity to participate and provide the feedback they have received from their communities and the people in their constituencies.

We want victims to have access to the services and supports they need. We recognize that for many victims getting assurance that they can participate in sentencing and parole hearings and being informed of the status of a prosecution are very important steps. However, we want the government to provide real support and processes that will work.

That brings me to another disappointment I have with the bill. I have not heard the government enunciate that the bill it is bringing in feels in many ways a bit like a policy document. It is setting a framework with respect to how things should happen in the criminal justice system, the rights and the roles of victims and their families, when a lot of that would happen at the provincial government level, as it does now. The government is not providing the resources along with those added roles and responsibilities. We have seen this in some of the other legislation that has come forward, where the government has said that this will be, that this will happen, and who shall do the following, yet the provincial governments have ended up picking up much of the responsibility.

We just heard that the government cut its disaster relief to the provinces. There used to be a $1 million eligibility threshold for disaster relief. It is now $3 million. That may not seem like a big deal, but over the past 15 years, my home province of Nova Scotia has made 15 applications under the disaster relief plan that previously existed with the $1 million threshold. The new $3 million threshold would have meant that 14 of those applications would not have been eligible and that upwards of $20 million would need to borne by the province and the communities, many of which are small communities.

I am just illustrating my point about how the government tends to download roles and responsibilities to the provincial government without taking into account the attendant costs.

There will be, and there should be, an expectation that victims will receive the support that is clearly spelled out in the bill. They will demand them and the provinces will have to step up. That is not a bad thing, but in many cases there will be some financial responsibilities.

I am glad this bill has come forward. I support it. It is a good move. I wish the government would have allowed more fulsome debate on it so we could all tell stories from our individual constituencies, but it is a step in the right direction. We will have to ensure that in future Parliaments we are able to correct the existing weaknesses.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

He said that, yes, we have a bill of rights, but it also needs the commensurate resources to accomplish anything. Knowing this government, we might see good intentions, but no real measures to achieve the desired goal.

I would like my colleague to talk to us about the need to add resources immediately to ensure that the spirit of the bill of rights is respected and that people can truly benefit from it.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. It is all well and good to lay out the principle and to give direction that one shall do this or do that. I am providing the context in this case of a lower level government, but without the commensurate resources. What is in fact being accomplished, other than raising the expectations perhaps of people who, in this case, deserve to be treated better? That is one of my concerns.

Nonetheless, it will not prevent me from supporting the legislation. It is a weakness, though, that will have to be addressed later on down the road.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my New Democrat colleague for his excellent speech.

Something is bothering me about today's debate. The Conservatives accuse us of not being on the victims' side. I find that very offensive, since the NDP has always supported victims' rights. Obviously, being the victim of a crime is a terrible thing. My thoughts go out to victims and their families, who go through very tough times and sometimes even struggle to make it through.

I also know that my New Democrat colleague has spoken a number of times in the House on behalf of the families of victims, lobbying the government to pass bills that protect victims. Unfortunately his own bill was rejected by the Conservatives.

Could my colleague talk more about the Conservatives' doublespeak? They choose the type of assistance they want to give victims, yet refuse to implement good solutions suggested by the New Democrat opposition.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point, but we will fix that in the election in 2015. The New Democratic Party will form government in our country, and we will not only correct the most egregious parts of the agenda of the members opposite, but will bring in our vision, the vision that has been articulated by the leader of my party, the MP for Outremont, who is so clearly leading the strongest opposition that has ever been seen in our country and in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for having always defended victims.

I would like to talk about how the debate on the bill currently before the House is once again being shut down. The official opposition is prepared to debate this bill and to talk about the importance of giving victims a voice. However, we are once again dealing with closure.

I would like my colleague to comment on this measure that the Conservatives keep using, namely imposing closure on bills that they themselves introduce in the House.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, and I said this in my remarks earlier.

It does not matter if we support this legislation, and we have indicated that, but it does not mean that we have to ram it through. When legislation comes to this place, it is our opportunity to bring the perspectives of our constituents forward, to address it, comment on it, to share our stories and those experiences, and to raise what we think are the strengths and weaknesses of particular legislation. Just because we support a bill does not mean that it should be rammed through the House. Likewise, if we have concerns about particular legislation, it should not be rammed through the House.

How many times has there been time allocation? It is in the eighties, and that is very bad. It is bad government.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage of debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights Act, which will build upon the government's continuing efforts to protect Canadians and communities.

I would like to focus my remarks on two areas specifically. First, how the bill complements and builds upon current policies, legislation and practices for victims of crime; and second, how the bill assists victims of crime to deal with the financial impact of victimization.

The past 30 years have seen many important advances for victims of crime. Victim-serving organizations and various levels of government have contributed tremendously to making a substantive change for victims of crime in this country.

An important milestone in our country's work for victims of crime was the endorsement in 1988 and 2003, by federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice, of the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, which recognizes victims' interests and promotes, at a national level, fair treatment of victims in our criminal justice system.

The Canadian victims bill of rights will complement the solid foundation set out in the Canadian statement and will go one step further by entrenching rights of victims into a single, federal law.

The Canadian statement has guided and informed the development of policies, legislation and practices for victims of crime across Canada. Each province and territory has developed victims services and legislation unique to their provincial and territorial reality. Provincial and territorial legislation for victims of crime in some cases includes provisions worded as rights, such as the right to information, to consideration of personal safety and to respectful treatment.

Bill C-32 will not impede existing provincial and territorial legislation but rather complement it. This is important. The bill reflects provincial and territorial input received from a variety of processes, including the public consultations and ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories. It is also informed by best practices from provincial and territorial victim legislation and programs. It has been carefully crafted to deliver on the government's objective of transformational change for victims of crime, while respecting constitutional divisions of power.

This respect for federal and provincial jurisdiction is reiterated in the preamble to Bill C-32, which explicitly recognizes that criminal justice is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

In addition, Bill C-32 also balances the rights of victims of crime with other fundamental interests in the criminal justice system, such as the need not to interfere with prosecutorial independence or police discretion.

Section 20 of the bill specifies that rights must be applied in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances and not likely to endanger life or safety, interfere with police or prosecutorial discretion or compromise an investigation or prosecution.

During the consultations held in 2013, the government heard clearly from stakeholders about the importance of these principles. Many stakeholders, including provinces and territories and criminal justice professionals, argued that these principles underpin the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system.

We all recognize this, so I am pleased to see that Bill C-32 provides rights granted to victims that must be interpreted and applied in a reasonable way and with regard to these principles.

I would now like to pay particular attention to the rights and amendments relating to restitution. Many victims expressed concerns over the financial burden of crime and these provisions have been designed to address these concerns.

A disproportionate percentage of all costs related to crime are borne by victims. Numerous submissions addressed the financial impact of crime on victims, including concerns about loss of income as a result of the crime and an inability to work out-of-pocket expenses related to criminal proceedings and additional costs that were borne by victims. In some cases, these expenses placed people in situations of serious financial hardship.

The Canadian victims bill of rights aims to address this imbalance and relieve some of the financial burden of crime from victims.

The bill clearly indicates that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and, when not paid, the right to enforce the order as a civil judgment. These amendments acknowledge the harm done to victims and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders. The bill would make a number of amendments to the restitution regime in the Criminal Code to ensure that the existing legislative framework properly supports these rights.

Under the current restitution regime, victims have expressed frustration over collecting the amounts that have been ordered to them. Furthermore, the amount of moneys ordered consistently exceeds the amount of moneys collected. Victims' confidence in the criminal justice system is undermined when restitution orders are not paid.

The Canadian victims bill of rights would amend the Criminal Code to direct that judges must consider ordering restitution as a part of an appropriate sentence in all cases. Before a decision is made on restitution, the court would be required to inquire with the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to provide the victim with an opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution for losses or damages. If the court decides not to order restitution, it would be required to state the reasons for its decision into the record.

The proposed amendments would enable victims to use an optional form in the Criminal Code to assist them in calculating and describing the readily ascertainable losses and damages. A motion accepted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would also amend the Criminal Code to allow a public authority responsible for enforcing a restitution order to be designated by a provincial or territorial order in council or a minister's order. This would allow for bodies to be designated more quickly and efficiently, and would help to avoid lengthy delays that may result from the proposed requirement for regulations.

At its core, this bill aims to give victims of crime a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. In the context of restitution, this would be achieved by permitting victims to speak to their ascertainable losses and damages in a victim impact statement. In determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender, the court must take this statement into account. Furthermore, the offender's financial means or inability to pay the restitution order cannot in and of itself prevent a court order from issuing the restitution order. This provision of the bill codifies decisions from various appellate courts across Canada.

The proposed reforms regarding the payment of the restitution order were built on the necessity for victims to receive reparation for their losses and damages. The bill would provide that the offender's failure to pay the restitution by the date or dates specified in the order would allow the victim to enter any amount that remains to be paid as a judgment in any civil court in Canada. This provision would provide clarity to victims and to the court about exactly when the restitution order can be deemed unpaid and properly entered as a civil judgment against the offender.

This carefully tailored restitution regime, when entrenched in criminal law, would have many benefits. It would provide victims with effective reparations and allow them to avoid lengthy civil proceedings. Equally important, these measures would ensure that offenders are accountable for the harm they have done.

This bill represents a balancing of the many interests at stake in the criminal justice process. It would also help to improve victims' experiences and assist them to deal with the financial costs of their victimization.

I would urge all members to join me in supporting the victims bill of rights act to provide victims of crime with a more effective voice in the criminal justice and corrections system.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going through the bill and I am a little puzzled how, in the actual provisions of the bill, the government is professing that this is a new mechanism whereby any victim of a crime can go through a procedure and participate, whether investigation or prosecution, in the course of the trial.

However, this bill only has a procedure for the federal departments or agencies to establish a complaints system and, as we all know in this place, the Criminal Code is actually investigating and prosecuting by provincial and territorial authorities. Section 26 does say that victims must go to a territorial or provincial entity if they cannot get recourse elsewhere.

Can the member tell us how exactly this law would actually enable Canadian citizens to file a complaint or participate in that case?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me enlighten the member on the Constitution Act, 1982 which delineates the separation of powers between the federal government and the provincial government.

The federal government is charged with constructing the Criminal Code of Canada and the provinces are charged with implementing the Criminal Code of Canada.

The federal Parliament, by way of jurisdiction according to the Constitution Act, 1982 and before that, the British North America Act, only has jurisdiction over federal institutions.

I would refer the member to read the British North America Act, to read her history, to refer back to the Constitution Act, 1982. That should give her the right information in terms of why we here in the Parliament of Canada only have jurisdiction over federal institutions and federal organizations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to talk and to attempt to appeal to victims through legislation such as this. We, too, support and want to be there for victims of crime.

What my constituents really want to see is a proactive government that understands that the best way we can protect victims is to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place. If the government gave just as much attention to dealing with that issue as it puts on spin, we would have safer communities.

Does the member recognize that if we invest in our communities, through different types of programming, especially those that deal with youth, gangs and things of this nature, that we would be able to prevent crimes from taking place, and therefore there would be fewer victims? All of society would benefit.

The government should not only be talking about this, but it should be delivering the financial and other resources to make that happen.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable. Canadians can count on this Conservative government to look after all citizens of Canada, including the most vulnerable.

The member brings up some interesting perspectives. We have funded many programs to enhance the security functions of our police, to give them more tools and more law enforcement abilities, and that party has voted against it time and time again.

The other day my wife was making a soup. This anecdote will elucidate exactly what the NDP and Liberals say here in the House, that they support this bill. My wife was making a vegetable soup and it was very thick. My eight year old boy came into the room and said, “Mom, is that a stew?” She said, “No, it is soup”. He said that he was going to call it stew because it looks like stew. My wife said that he could call it whatever he wanted, but it was still soup.

The victims bill of rights is exactly that. It is what it says it is. There is no hidden agenda here. There is nothing untoward here. The opposition members say they support it. We have had 500 different consultations. It has been before committee. It has been debated in this House.

Let us think of the victims who need this bill, who need this enacted into law. This is a transformative piece of legislation. Opposition members should get with the program, get on board. Let us pass this legislation and get it through the House as quickly as possible. The victims of crime here in Canada are waiting for it.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 and 4 defeated.

(Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 negatived)

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that the bill be concurred in, with amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #322

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.