House of Commons Hansard #160 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parks.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard a moment ago that there seemed to be unanimous consent to see the clock. Will you seek whether there is consent?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
My suggestion was actually a bit beyond seeing the clock; it was seeing the calendar. I was trying to see it as tomorrow afternoon.
Perhaps if the members want to corral the government and opposition House leaders outside the chamber, we could try again, but right now I do not think there is unanimous consent, despite our best efforts.
Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, December 9, the House will now proceed to orders of the day.
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.
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 Conservative 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 Conservative 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.