I hope that everyone understood my comments with respect to cost. It is difficult to assess the costs at this time. We don't have all the data—for example, with respect to missing children. We feel that the costing for missing children is very high. What I mean is that, when the legislation is in effect, it would be a good idea to follow up with people who have actually taken advantage of its provisions, to see how long they are on leave and develop a profile of these individuals, so that we have appropriate data. In terms of the current state of our knowledge in victimology, we don't have all the data, nor do the United States and the rest of Canada.
One other thing that is important is equity among victims. All victims in Canada, whether they live in Quebec, the Yukon or somewhere else, should be treated fairly. The question of eligibility for this type of leave should be discussed. I realize that the federal and provincial governments have their own areas of jurisdiction. But here we are talking about employees that fall within federal jurisdiction.
As regards victims' rights and the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, I think that, as Canadians, we should be trying to ensure that all victims in Canada are treated equitably. These provisions should be enforced across Canada and discussed in such forums as the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Victims of Crime, and they should be submitted to the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which obviously has a role to play with respect to systemic issues—and it's important to remember that. There is also an advisory committee within the Department of Justice. Changes are needed in terms of the treatment of victims and there must be concern for equitable treatment for all people, and for those who are particularly vulnerable.
I would like to make one comment regarding what was said earlier about the meaning of the term “probable”. This type of legislation does not fall under the criminal law, but rather labour law and the law associated with the Compensation for Victims of Crime Program. In all these areas of law, the standard to be applied is always the balance of evidence, and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would also like to point out that when a person has been negligent or was involved in negligent behaviour, or what is known in Quebec as “gross fault”, that person is not able to take advantage of the provisions of such legislation. That being the case, I see no reason why Canadians or members of your party—the Conservative Party—would be opposed to this legislation based on that argument. At the same time—and this is also a discussion we have often had within our association—there is a level of discomfort with respect to the issue of gross fault.
A distinction is often made between innocent victims and those that are not. This is a distinction that results in a lack of compassion for parents who have nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal offence committed by their children. A girl or a boy may join a street gang and do terrible things without the parents encouraging that kind of behaviour. That does not mean we should not show compassion for them if their child is injured as a result of these kinds of events.
At the same time, this is not a simple matter. In making these comments, I am not asking that the legislation be amended along those lines; I am simply saying that, as Canadians, we should give this some thought. We need to reflect on this, perhaps at a later date, and avoid targeting or making a distinction between innocent victims and those who are not. Sometimes the victims who are not innocent are people we have not tried to help or people we weren't there for when the needed help. We have to pay attention to that.
Those are the two comments I wanted to make in response to the questions raised earlier.