Debates of June 20th, 2014

The House resumed from June 13 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

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their customary support. Today, I am pleased to be speaking to An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I should point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading. That said, we are not giving the government a blank cheque, that is for sure. We are supporting this bill so that it can be studied properly in committee and so that we can hear from experts, witnesses and perhaps even victims. We want to amend this less-than-perfect bill. We will support it so that we can work together to improve the situation.

We clearly want to provide victims of crime with tangible support. However, for that to happen, we need to be sure that this bill of rights is not just empty rhetoric. I personally have never been a victim of crime, but I can put myself in a victim's shoes. I know it would not be fun.

A responsible government that promises such measures to victims of crime—people who have gone through difficult experiences—should implement those measures properly, by listening to experts. People on the front lines also need to be able to implement them.

I should also point out that we have been waiting for the government to do something about this for eight years. I say “we”, but of course I mean that victims, too, have been waiting for the government to do something. The government promised in 2006 to give us this bill of rights. Why did victims have to wait eight years? For that whole time, they have not had these tools, they have not had any help coping. It is appalling that they were made to wait so long.

Ministers held press conferences and photo ops and promised all kinds of things, but they never actually did anything. Now we have something, but as I said earlier, we really have to make sure that this is not just pie in the sky and that it will really be done. In the meantime, victims are still waiting. The government cannot keep human beings waiting so long when these are such serious and sensitive issues.

Another problem with this bill is that it creates no legal obligation for people working in the justice system to implement the rights that are being given to victims. The government is setting up a system, but it is not making sure that anything will really happen and has told us nothing about how it is supposed to happen. Will this law just gather dust while they talk about how we have a bill of rights? That is what I am afraid of. I wonder about that.

Does the government really care about victims, or did it just introduce this bill to look good? We will find out what the government's real intentions are when we look at this bill in committee. Will the government not just hear from experts but really listen to them? Will it take all of this into consideration? I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I sure am looking forward to finding out what it is going to do with all this.

I would like to talk about some of the highlights of Bill C-32. First, it broadens the definition of “victim” to include individuals who have suffered property damage, physical or emotional harm or economic loss. It also clarifies the fact that the spouse of a victim can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf if the conjugal relationship has lasted for at least one year, of course.

It is still a good improvement and it is important that it be implemented.

The bill also changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release, because his appearance may have changed, for example.

It can be difficult for victims to know that their attacker is free to walk the streets when they do not know what he looks like or where he has ended up. The bill also allows victims to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.

In my opinion, victims have a right to this information, and this really must be implemented and enforced.

The bill also makes this interesting improvement:

The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to provide that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused.

Bill C-32 also creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated. Here again, we see that there is no legal obligation for stakeholders to put all this in place. Will this really be done and will victims really be able to file complaints with departments without having to fill out a ton of paperwork and take serious legal action?

We know that victims of crime are sometimes vulnerable and have difficulty coping with the situation. Will the government really help these people to do what needs to be done? I look forward to seeing that happen.

Finally, the bill also codifies the right to make a restitution order and specifies that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed.

I would like the government to specify what constitutes a “reasonable time”. I know it is a small detail. However, it is not a small thing for victims because a reasonable period of time could be two years, five years or even six months. I think it is important for victims to have that information.

In any case, we can hardly say no to this bill. We support it because victims need a bill of rights to protect them. However, we question some aspects of the bill. The necessary resources for implementing these measures have not been included in the bill, and I want to see those. I want to see how the government is going to implement this bill, who is going to work on it and how. That is what we need to see in this bill.

We are going to hear from experts in committee, and I truly hope that the government will consider what they have to say because, unlike us, they work in the field. We will see whether the government is open to real consultation or whether it plans on imposing a bill unilaterally and without consultation, just to look good. We will also see whether this bill really meets the needs identified by experts and victims.

I will gladly answer any questions.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her very fine speech.

She says she more or less trusts the government when it comes to implementing this bill. This is 2014 and we know there is an election coming up in 2015.

Does my colleague think this is essentially a ploy to make the Conservatives look good because they are trying to protect victims' rights, when in reality nothing will be done before the election?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question.

My biggest concern about this bill is that the measures on paper will not materialize. That is often what the government ends up doing.

Does the government want to draft a bill, print it and put it on a shelf and then, in 2015, say there is a victims bill of rights and target vulnerable people in that way? I do not know whether that is the intention. If so, I find that especially underhanded. I want this bill to be put into action. I think it is important that this bill be truly implemented.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague some questions.

Does she think that this bill of rights is based more on the legal process or on the legal aspects of victimization? Have the psychological ramifications of being a victim of crime been sufficiently examined for this bill and when developing the bill of rights?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague for her questions.

In my opinion, during consultations, people often forget to consider the psychological impact on those who have had experiences that are often incredibly difficult. As I said earlier, I have never been a victim of crime and therefore I am not really in a position to say more.

That said, it is important to consult these people when the opportunity arises. Not only must we listen to them, but we must also hear what they are saying. We have to really consider what they have to say and what they have experienced.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that it would have been useful to have had more consultations in order to determine how to help people deal with their experiences? How does she think that we could explore this aspect of the bill of rights when we study it in committee?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee will hear primarily from legal experts. It would be informative to also hear from victims, if they are up to it, of course. That may not be the case, which is perfectly understandable. However, we could hear from psychologists, social workers or people working on the ground who are familiar with what victims go through. It would be interesting.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I would like to point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading because we feel it should be studied at committee. However, we are definitely not giving the government a blank cheque. I do not think we should conclude consideration in committee until experts have spoken to us about specific aspects of the bill. That is why we feel very strongly about it going to committee. I sincerely hope that, for the victims' sake, we will take the time to conduct an in-depth study at committee and that the committee will be open to the potential amendments put forward by the opposition. I hope that we will take the time to do a non-partisan study. I think that it is particularly important, when talking about victims, not to be excessively partisan.

One thing disappoints me. The Conservatives have been talking about being tough on crime since they formed a minority government in 2006. They have consistently increased penalties for crimes, imposed minimum sentences and talked about victims. However, it was not until 2014 that they decided to introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights, when they could have done it at any point since 2006. I feel it is particularly disappointing to see that they have waited until their mandate is almost up to decide to work on this issue.

Since the government came to power, it has proposed increasingly severe legislation, as though the only thing victims want is harsher punishment for those who commit crimes. With respect to victims, I do not think that the various aspects were fully explored.

To begin, many of those aspects are not of a legal nature. They are related to the process and how we should be treating victims and listening to them. One of the first things that comes to mind is the whole process of revictimization or investigation.

Let us take a case of sexual assault as an example. Someone has been victimized in a very intimate way. As part of the legal process and obtaining evidence of the assault, the person undergoes an examination at the hospital. There is a kit for sexual assault, for rape.

I am a nurse. I have worked in emergency and intensive care. I was trained to use this kit. It is not much fun. When a person is raped, we have to look for physical, material evidence. To convict the rapist, we have to invade the victim's body when she is still in a very vulnerable psychological state. When we use the rape kit, we are kind of victimizing the victim all over again. Everyone understands that it is part of the legal process, but it is not easy to do.

For the Canadian victims bill of rights, we have to make sure there is money so that the people using these kits are properly trained and have the tools they need to help people in such sad situations.

There is something else that is not covered by the Canadian victims bill of rights: the right to be heard, believed and listened to. Often during the investigation, whether the crime was serious or not, people ask questions that can be a little biased. The victim might get the feeling that nobody believes her, that they think she is responsible for what happened, that she is being accused of making excuses or making things up. That is a very hard thing to go through for a victim who experienced a traumatizing event and found the courage to talk about it. For example, from the way the investigator asks questions, the victim might get the feeling that the investigator is practically accusing her of making the whole story up.

That can be unbearable for a victim. The bill of rights does not touch on the right to be listened to and believed, and that is a shame. That is exactly the psychological aspect I was talking about in the questions I asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

This bill of rights is very closely tied to the legal process. In some cases, there is no trial because the guilty party is never found. In many rape cases, the rapist is never found. If no charges are laid, the victim is not considered a victim in the eyes of the law because it cannot be proven that a crime took place if there is no trial. There can be obvious signs of rape on the woman's body, but if there is neither a trial nor a conviction, she is not considered to be a victim of crime.

In the case of other victims, the offender may be found, but lack of evidence may prevent the victim's case from going before the courts. These women will not be considered victims, even if a crime is committed against them and they are traumatized. The victims bill of rights will not apply to them because there was not enough evidence to take their case to court.

In other cases where a trial does take place, the criminal may be acquitted for different reasons. I will not go into all the details, but the victim is not considered a victim even though she has suffered psychological trauma. She lives with the impact of the crime day in and day out. That is also not recognized by the victims bill of rights.

There are other situations where people are not identified as victims. I am talking about cases where the attacker dies, for example as part of a family tragedy. The father kills his children and then kills himself. He will obviously not be tried in court, and thus the victim will not be considered a victim under the bill of rights. That is very unfortunate.

When the bill to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights is studied in committee, I recommend that the government take the time to talk to victims. I would like the government to step out of the legal realm and examine the possibility of giving rights to victims who will not be considered victims. I am talking about victims who do not press charges and whose attackers will not be incarcerated for the various reasons that I mentioned. Could they be included?

I hope that in committee we will take the time to listen to leaders of community organizations and health professionals who work with victims of crime in order to determine a holistic approach to helping victims. The bill of rights should recognize that victims have the right to be heard instead of just being linked to a judicial process.

There will still be a lot of work to be done when the bill is studied in committee, and we will do it. I sincerely hope that the Conservative government will take the time to do a thorough job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very precise speech. She really analyzed this bill.

She said one thing that really struck me, which was that more extensive consultation was needed throughout the process. She started describing how she envisioned this broader consultation, which would make the bill of rights more inclusive of victims.

Could she tell us a bit more about the study in committee and how she envisions support for victims?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during its study, the committee will have to hear from front-line and second-line health care professionals. In many cases, these professionals respond to emergencies when the victims show up, whether they are victims of assaults or car accidents. The situations vary.

We need these front-line workers and police officers to tell us about how they respond to these individuals. We need to hear what it is really like for them, for example, when a mother comes out of her house in tears and clutches them in her arms. You have to know what to do, and you have to ensure that these people have rights and that they get the support they need. I think that is worthwhile.

I also think it would be worthwhile for the committee to hear from victims, if they feel able to testify. I am thinking in particular of victims whose case did not go to trial, for various reasons that I have already mentioned. Perhaps the person who committed the crime is dead, either because he committed suicide after committing the crime or because he died when the police attempted to arrest him. There are also cases where the person who committed the crime was never found or where the victim was told that their story seemed truthful, but that there was not enough evidence to lay charges.

I would like these people to have an opportunity to share their thoughts and to talk about their experiences so that we can take them into account. We need to ensure that the victims bill of rights applies to all victims and not just those who fit the definitions in a very specific bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her very enlightening remarks.

I will be speaking about this bill later, and I must admit that I have mixed feelings on this topic. I feel hopeful, skeptical and perhaps even a bit of afraid of becoming disillusioned.

For eight years, the Conservative government has been bragging that it is the champion of victims. We saw it during photos ops and at press conferences. Although this bill does contain some good policy that I will of course support, it seems that there is still a huge gap between the stated objectives and the methods that will be used to attain them.

I would like to know whether my colleague shares my view and whether she too is worried that this will set victims up for disappointment?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer my colleague's question is to quote the words of a mother whose child was murdered. Members may have seen her on CBC news on April 3, 2014. Her name is Lori Triano-Antidormi, and she expressed some doubts about how effective this bill will be.

According to Lori Triano-Antidormi, this bill could create false hope for victims. This woman is a victim of crime, but as a psychologist, she also helps people to cope with situations like the one she experienced. This is what she said:

My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system. Right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. The crown has the final say. If the government were to make that change, it would only fuel vengeance in the victim which from a physiological perspective doesn't help their healing or recovery.

In many cases, victims are more concerned about knowing that the person who committed the offence understands the pain and suffering he caused, than they are about the sentence the offender receives. However, no justice system can guarantee that. The offender may be sentenced to 25 years in prison rather than 15, but if he continues to dig in his heels, remain in his shell and fail to understand the harm he caused, what purpose does that serve?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts is an attempt—again, an attempt—to provide better support to victims. I am not a lawyer or a health specialist. Also, Mr. Speaker, allow me to stick to the principles. You will understand why a little later.

Support for victims should not be combined with revenge or vengeance. The judicial process is not just centred around the relationship between victim and criminal. I understand that there needs to be more room for victims in the judicial process, but settling for just that would be like having a body with no arms or legs. It is only part of the equation.

In fact, in my opinion, a victims bill must also support people who need assistance. That is the best thing we can do. We must take a holistic approach to supporting the victim. This bill, however, is only one piece of the puzzle.

Helping victims takes more than just using rhetoric to score political points, to look good, to have a photo op. That is not it at all. We must stop putting victims in the spotlight, in front of the cameras, and make room for people who need help in a process that, I repeat, is always painful. It is not a question of using fine words, but of taking action.

To cite a few examples to support that, on April 3, the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said:

It is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime.

This example from the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes alone illustrates the holistic approach I was talking about earlier.

I could also quote Sheldon Kennedy, the famous hockey player. He said:

[this is about] the process of trying to be better at the way we handle victims, not only through the court process, but really understanding the damage that happens to victims.

He also talked about how we could assist victims to overcome their pain and, if possible, helping them return to a healthy, normal life.

I want to share a quote from Andrew Swan, the Attorney General of Manitoba. He said this:

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.

That is how it seems, but anyway.

[I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable—like Manitoba's support services office—then it is an empty gesture.

The point is that it is important to support victims throughout the legal process and to provide better assistance, but some thought also needs to be put into this. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke about this in her speech. We need to support victims throughout a process that, we must admit, is a painful one. There is nothing pleasant about the process. What we are saying is that we should not make things worse; the focus should be on healing. That is what is important, and it is a huge part of this.

I am surprised that after all these years of talking about support for victims, the government did not give more consideration to how to provide support for victims outside the legal process. It has not gotten any further than that. My colleagues mentioned some necessary improvements with respect to support during the legal process.

I do not understand why the government has not assessed the issue of victim support more thoroughly after spending all these years talking about it.

Let us not forget that the federal government and the provinces, its key partners when it comes to justice issues, share jurisdiction on this. Everybody has to move in the same direction, meaning the federal and provincial governments have to take a collective and collaborative approach to supporting victims. I hope that the minister will address the issue from that perspective. If not, we will see a political party's agenda instead of a real political will to support victims.

Moreover, the consultation has to be as broad as possible. We must not go too fast; we need to get it right. It is important to allow everybody—victims, experts, health care professionals and the general public—to participate in this discussion, which will lead to a better framework for victim support.

If the government is willing to hold this broad consultation, this Parliament will have accomplished something noble. This is not a purely partisan debate where we and the government are on opposite sides. Fundamentally, the goal is to find out how we can best support people who have gone through a traumatic experience. That is the crux of the matter. Do we really want to work together to help these people in the best possible way?

I ask the government to consider conducting this broad consultation, so we can hear everyone with something to say and use their comments to improve the bill. The committee stage would be a good time to conduct the consultation and transform this first draft into legislation that really benefits victims. It is of the utmost importance.

When it comes to supporting people, principles are not enough. We need to invest money eventually. We cannot promise to help people and offer only goodwill. A number of volunteer organizations support these victims. We need to support the groups that offer support. It will take money to make things happen.

I would also like to see a commitment spelling out how we are planning to help these people. Would that be possible? How can we support this measure? That is key. If we do not spell out how the support and collaboration will occur, we will never reach a viable solution, and victims need viable solutions.

In closing, I think that the government and, by extension, this Parliament, has no right to disappoint victims with a faulty bill. We will support the bill at second reading because it really needs improvement. Despite what we have seen these past years, our side remains optimistic. We hope that we can all work together to improve this bill, for the benefit of victims.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.

I must say that I am having a harder time than he is being optimistic about all of this. He will know why once I ask him this question, even though I know he is not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, but maybe between the two of us we can figure this out.

When reading Bill C-32, as it now stands, it is clear that the justice system is not legally obligated to uphold the various rules in the bill of rights. That is why my optimism is somewhat muted. There should at least be some sort of basic minimum. I have a feeling that all of the witnesses we will hear from in committee will talk about the fact that there should be a clause like that in the bill. After eight years of working on this, it is still not there.

Does he feel that, once again, the Conservatives are creating false hope with these ideas that will not be enforced on a daily basis?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his question. His comments are always spot on.

We have no right to make victims cynical about this whole political process. We simply do not have that right. Each one of us wants a better support framework for victims. That is what everyone wants. We just cannot agree on how to do that.

The government has often talked about victims, and the members on this side of the House agree that we should be offering them better support. As I said in my speech, I think that this bill is just a starting point. We need to change this bill by listening to the needs of each and every victim and taking advantage of our desire to truly help them. If we do not take that approach, if we are short-sighted and choose to ignore entire parts of the solution, then the hon. member for Trois-Rivières will, unfortunately, be right. However, in this case, I hope he will be proven wrong.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I say trepidation because I have an unlimited respect and admiration for the resilience of victims of crime. That is why we, as Canadian parliamentarians, do not have the right to mess things up by making victims believe or hope for options that the law would not offer them.

I have to say at the outset that I will support this bill at second reading so that it can be considered in committee, where numerous experts who are much more qualified than I am will give us their insight. We will then be able to improve this bill, which, by many accounts, already has flaws that we must address before it becomes law. It would indeed be embarrassing to pass Bill C-32 only to see it fail to reach its goals.

I must admit that the Conservatives' strategy makes me uneasy. It took them eight years to put forward such a flawed proposal, but, during all that time, they tried to score political points by holding press conferences and photo ops.

The NDP, however, has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims' groups and specialists to determine how to really help victims. If creating a victims bill of rights is indeed the right approach, and if it is to be more than simple lip service, then it must be properly backed up with the resources it needs. At this point in the debate, Bill C-32 still makes no mention of funding. The devil may be in the details, but it seems to me that resources are more than mere details. I am legitimately concerned that the bill will be just for show, a simple list of principles, rather than the outcome of a genuine desire to support victims.

A good number of people who work with victims share my concerns. Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, has accused the Minister of Justice of not living up to his promises. In a CBC interview on April 3, he said that the bill itself was fine, the main problem being that the Minister of Justice had failed to live up to his promise to put victims at the heart of the justice system. He expressed some concern that many victims would only read the headlines rather than taking the time to read the actual bill, which would lead them to believe that the system has fundamentally changed when in fact it has not.

We are just as concerned as Mr. Sullivan is, and we will do everything we can so that the bill achieves the stated goals.

I could quote dozens of other people who worry that, as it is now, Bill C-32 does not seem able to meet expectations.

Our job and main objective in committee will be to make sure that the Canadian victims bill of rights fits into the Canadian judicial system, meets victims' expectations and responds to the recommendations they made.

For the people who are watching us, I would like to summarize the recommendations in nine simple and easy-to-understand points: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limited opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or reoffend.

I agree this is an ambitious agenda. At first glance, we must recognize that the proposed bill of rights meets some of these requirements. For example, it broadens the definition of a crime victim and it codifies the right of victims to information, protection, participation and restitution.

However, this bill of rights does not create 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' rights are infringed.

As with many other Conservative bills, this bill seems to lack the means to fulfill its ambitions. It seems that no specific funds have yet been allocated to implement these complaint mechanisms or help out the provinces. The bill of rights also contains limitation clauses stipulating that the proposed rights have to be exercised in a reasonable way.

“Reasonable”, that is the kind of weasel wording that causes confusion and that, unfortunately, is a trademark of the Conservatives. They used the same kind of wording in other bills. I could, for instance, mention the concept of “suitable employment”, which creates a major headache in the implementation of the new employment insurance system. The Conservatives seem to be masters at including deliberately undefined and confusing weasel words allowing the government to renege on its commitments as soon as things heat up.

This is why we hope that the bill will be thoroughly studied, clause by clause, in committee under the eyes of experts who are much more qualified than your humble servant. I will support this bill at second reading mostly so that we can study it thoroughly.

We sincerely hope that partisanship will give way to an effective and determined effort to seek the best solutions possible so that we can offer victims more than hope, namely the means to take action and the resources to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I had promised to follow up on some testimonies from people who expressed their concerns about Bill C-32. I am therefore keeping my promise so that we can be prepared to find answers for the issues we are considering in committee.

I would like to quote Mrs. Lori Triano-Antidormi, the mother of a murder victim and psychologist. While going through her own tragedy, she helps other victims overcome hardships. Here is what she told us: “This bill will create false hopes for victims.” Let us hope that we will be able to allay her fears about that.

The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes also welcomes the bill. The Association points out, however, that the bill of rights will be effective only if the mechanisms giving the victims recourse when their rights have been infringed upon are truly accessible, and if we allocate the resources to make that happen.

A more scathing comment came from Mr. Frank Addario, a criminal lawyer. He said:

The Conservative government's agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect.

As you can see, these quotes show a wide range of perspectives. While everyone wants to give the government the benefit of the doubt, hoping that the bill will materialize and really meet the expectations that it created, there is also some degree of skepticism and concern. These three examples really highlight the challenge we are facing and the government's responsibility to be open and responsive to suggestions at the committee stage.

If the past is any indication, it does not bode well, as the Conservatives have often proven unreceptive, even closed-minded, when their proposals or methods have come into question.

I sincerely hope that, when it comes to Bill C-32, our empathy for the victims' tragedies will bring us together as compassionate human beings, rather than divide us into different camps based on our party's colours.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his very humanistic approach.

The government dragged its feet for eight years before providing victims with the meaningful measures we have all been waiting for. However, right now, we are working on a bill that has plenty of flaws, especially with regard to financial support for victims. We know that victims still have to pay 83% of costs. Therefore, this is doublespeak. The government does not really provide any financial help. Also, its proposed bill of rights does not include a legal process to ensure that victims' complaints are taken into account.

What does my colleague think about that? What should the government do to really improve this proposed victims bill of rights?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

I could easily have gone into a full-scale attack on the preliminary steps that led to the second reading vote. But I chose not to do so because, of all bills, this is certainly one that should be considered without any partisanship. We can criticize them for taking eight years, but the fact is that the bill is now before us.

My self-restraint comes from the hope that government members will show the same open attitude that would help us work together and send a positive message not only to victims, but also to all Canadians, who are fed up with the way parliamentarians work. It is in our best interests to send a positive message and show that we are able to solve problems when we work together.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There will be three minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the issue raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

Royal Canadian Navy

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to wish the Royal Canadian Navy, in particular the submariners of our navy, a happy anniversary for 100 years of service to Canada.

Last week, I had the honour of representing our Minister of National Defence, in Halifax, for the opening of the new submarine maintenance facility, a $52-million investment by our government to maintain the Victoria class submarine.

It was named after Captain Bernard Leitch Johnson, a pioneer of submarine service here in Canada, and veteran of World Wars I and II. He won the Distinguished Service Order for saving his crew from a mine strike.

The bravery and service of our navy continues to today, and I have to note my classmate, Lieutenant Chris Saunders, who died in the service of Canada aboard HMCS Chicoutimi in 2004, off of Ireland.

The service and sacrifice of our submariners is appreciated and admired. I wish them a Dolphin code 38, and from a former Sea King navigator, a Dolphin code 25B. Submariners will know what that means.

They remain ready, aye, ready for Canada, and I thank them for their service.

New Democratic Party of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary session is drawing to a close, and I am proud of the work accomplished for Louis-Hébert. Petitions, speeches, statements, comments, questions in the House and participation in committees allowed me to defend the interests of my constituents.

Think of such issues as the Quebec Bridge, funding for the ice oval, maintaining home mail delivery, public finances, public administration, basic research and CBC/Radio-Canada, to name just a few.

Throughout the session, my colleagues and I were here, but we did not neglect our work in the ridings, where we met with thousands of people, individually or in groups, from the community, educational institutions and businesses. We help them find solutions to their problems and realize their dreams.

I would also like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by my team, my colleagues in this place, who have diverse and exceptional talents, and also by our leader, who has shown that with solidarity and perseverance we can do politics differently by making people the priority.

Recognition of Service

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, and constituents in my riding of Don Valley East and my party, would like to recognize Constable Mike Buzzetti, who is retiring this summer after 30 years with the House of Commons security services.

Many of us know Constable Buzzetti as the friendly face who greets us as we arrive each day, and who takes the time to say hello or exchange a few words when we pass through the entrance.

Constable Buzzetti's passion for this place and its history are evident to any of us who have been guided through this building by him.

Congratulations and best wishes on his well-earned retirement, and may he have many years of happiness.

Expo Labrador

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Labrador boasts some of the best opportunities in Canada, and we are open for business. Next week, people from all over the country and the world will convene at Happy Valley-Goose Bay to join in Expo Labrador, our premier resource development showcase.

From the newest and greatest energy development projects to new iron ore developments, Labrador's agenda is fairly full. I will be bringing the focus of new infrastructure to Labrador's showcase. There is a need for a railway and a port in Labrador to support the mining industry, and fibre optic technology to support business and communities.

These are all necessary components of a progressive region. I would like to recognize the Labrador North Chamber of Commerce, and in particular, Julianne Philpott and Brian Fowlow, for organizing this great event on behalf of all Labradorians.

Outstanding Heroes in the Home Award

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Community Care Northumberland, a non-profit organization, has a dedicated mission to strive to be the best volunteer-based community support organization in Northumberland County, and to assist clients to experience a higher quality of life by strengthening their connections with the community.

Community Care Port Hope branch recently recognized the efforts of six local heroes with an Outstanding Heroes in the Home award.

One of these heroes is 12-year-old Kameron Cross, from Garden Hill, nominated for his valiant efforts to assist his father. Andrew's father is confined to a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis, but this does not stop Andrew from helping his dad with daily chores, outings, and everyday events that we take for granted.

This outstanding young man compassionately serves his family with unwavering commitment and kindness, to ensure his father is included both in his family home and in the community.

I applaud all of our local heroes in the home, all those who work in the background to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities and experiences as the rest of us.