Debates of May 27th, 2014

Victims Bill of Rights Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill amends the Canada Evidence Act to provide that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused. This changes a fundamental aspect of our system and it also deserves a lot of attention. Until now, it was always presumed that a person did not have to testify against his or her spouse. I am looking forward to hearing the experts on this provision.

I am going to quote Michael Spratt, who said:

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

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

To continue the quote, it states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the last points I would like to mention is that the bill will codify the right to make a restitution order. It will also “specify that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, the resources have not yet materialized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote on Motion No.10—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Further to the point of order raised at the end of tonight's vote on government Motion No. 10, I have reviewed the tape, as I had committed to do, and can now confirm that the hon. member for Peterborough did rise when the yeas were called. As such, and specifically in this case, because there was an error in the voting process, his vote will be recorded accordingly.

That being said, the confusion tonight should again serve as a reminder to all members to remain attentive throughout the duration of votes, rising at the appropriate time in order to have their votes recorded as they intended and listening to ensure that their names have indeed been called. This would be of great assistance to the Chair, and it is only by doing so that the Chair and the vote-callers are not left guessing, and that members' votes will properly recorded.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Victims Bill of Rights

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

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

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

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