I'm the biggest guilty party, usually.
Thank you for your testimony. What you and all of the witnesses who are here today have experienced touches us, and gives a face to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. We can only express our deepest sympathy to you.
There are no words to say what you must have felt at different levels. That being said, I think there's a current theme in a lot of your exposés to us. One that reaches me particularly is to make this enforceable, and to make sure that it has success, we need to have the provinces on board. I've heard it from many of you during your testimony. What worries me a bit is that, not due to lack of effort from our clerk, because he did everything he could, we had one minister of justice from one province who had the guts—and I'll use the word and I'll pay the price afterwards, even from my own minister in the Province of Quebec—to come and address the committee on how he views this. I read a press release from the minister of justice of my province, in Quebec.
Concerning the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, following a federal, provincial, and territorial meeting of ministers of Justice, it was said that Quebec had its own way of doing things and that things were already working well.
I strongly feel that the provinces...I don't know if they don't take this charter seriously. That scares the hell out of me because as soon as we adopt this it goes to the other camps, because it'll be done. Our job is pretty limited, other than to adopt these clauses and hope that it's going to be treated fairly, and to use your words, Mr. Gilhooly, “with dignity and respect”. I do hope it gets there, but you heard the same testimony we heard from crown attorneys, who at least I would feel would be on your side, on the side of victims. Even though they're not your lawyers, they're the closest to being your lawyers, and they seem to have difficulty seeing the role they can play just to inform.
I know that has taken up a lot of my five minutes, but I think we see where you're all coming from, and I think I understood your message.
I have very quick questions, though, on the right to information, because I find you all very generous with the bill in giving it your support. I support it also, so don't worry; I think all parties will agree. I always strive for better, and maybe that's my upbringing.
The right to information, I always understood, was one of the most important points. You said so. Sometimes just the way they could have talked to you, with the same result, would have made a world of difference, Gregory.
The fact that every victim has the right, on request, is again putting the burden on the victims to ask for the information, because if they don't demand it
—in French, it is on demand—
they won't get it, necessarily. There's no real obligation. Shouldn't we maybe remove the expression “on request” and force the charter to state that every victim has a right to the information. Would you agree with that?