Debates of June 3rd, 2014

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to speak late in the evening and even more so to wake up everyone in the House and everyone who is watching to say that, at this time, we are debating Bill C-20, with respect to the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Unfortunately, before I get into the specifics, I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised to see that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are participating as they should be. I am surprised but, at the same time, not so much. In fact, that is what is really happening here in Ottawa. They are not present. They say they will be in the House to participate in the debate and share ideas so that together we can properly represent Canadians, but they are not here. Only the NDP is here and it has not missed a single opportunity to speak. The New Democrats have always been here and we will sit day and night. We did it when we arrived in 2011. I arrived in 2011 and, in the first weeks, we sat day and night.

As for me, I will not fall sleep when the interests of Canadians are at stake. I will participate in the debate and fiercely defend their interests, because that is what democracy is all about. It is good that we can have this exchange when people from different parties are present. They can bring their points of view, we can bring ours, and we can strike a certain balance and find ways to really improve things, to really improve bills. I see that the Conservative government is there, and that it is not moving, not speaking and closing it eyes and ears. It is not moving and I find that unfortunate. It makes no sense. I think that the Conservatives have sunk very low.

What the NDP wants in this Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is very simple. New Democrats want to assure Canadians that we realize how important trade is to our economy. We support increasing trade opportunities and we support Canadian exporters. However, this obviously needs to be done with human, environmental and social rights in mind, and we must ensure that the agreement benefits both countries. That is what is truly important. We also want to see more trade agreements with countries that honour Canadian values and sign trade agreements that truly benefit the Canadian economy.

New Democrats want to implement a strategic trade policy in order to restart multilateral negotiations and sign agreements with developed countries that have high standards or that are implementing high standards. I am talking about countries such as Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. These are all countries with which Canada should sign trade agreements, not countries like Honduras, where drug trafficking goes on with near impunity, where human rights are regularly violated, where democracy is in jeopardy and virtually absent, and where low standards will certainly harm our Canadian companies.

We believe there are three fundamentally important criteria that we should use in assessing trade agreements. I will not reinvent the wheel; it is very simple. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If not, is the partner trying to achieve these objectives? That is something we need to ask, and this objective is not met in this agreement. Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada? Once again, this objective is not met in this free trade agreement. Third, are the terms of this proposed agreement satisfactory? I do not think so. The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these three criteria.

Since Honduras is not a democratic country with adequate standards and institutions, since it represents little strategic interest to Canada, and since it is home to serious human rights violations, the majority of Canadians would certainly be opposed to giving this country preferential trade conditions.

Several interveners agree with the NDP and support our position. For example, Sheila Katz, a representative of the Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, had this to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013:

The Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records.

...Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009...is another example of Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record.

In Quebec, in my riding, Lawyers Without Borders has done exceptional work. I know that they were on a mission from November 21 to 26, 2013. They issued this press release:

...the executive director of Lawyers Without Borders Canada, Pascal Paradis, along with approximately 10 other dignitaries and representatives of international human rights organizations, took part in a mission organized by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). The purpose of the mission was to observe whether human rights violations occurred during the general election held on Sunday, November 24.

In a press release issued on November 25...the mission reported a number of irregularities that it felt tainted the process and could discredit the results. The mission also made several recommendations to Honduran authorities and the international community.

I also have a comment from Neil Reeder, director general of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's Latin America and Caribbean Bureau:

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with 65% of its people living in poverty. It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution. The country also suffers from social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. More than 60% of all Hondurans are highly vulnerable to food insecurity.

I could go on, but I know that I do not have a lot of time. I could speak at length about people who have concerns about this free trade agreement with Honduras.

When I look at the government, I get the impression that it collects agreements just for the fun of bragging about signing so many free trade agreements. These agreements essentially represent a very small percentage of our trade. Contrary to what the Conservatives say, it is not really worth it, but they keep bragging and signing. We will not find out the consequences of our actions until later—the consequences of this Conservative government that has no idea what it is doing. It does things with its eyes closed, without listening to experts: the Canadians who travel abroad and report back these types of incidents.

I invite the Conservatives to stand up in the House and speak so that we can finally have a debate. The important thing in the House of Commons is to debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 10:32 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2-53.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 4, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Deferred division on this motion also applies to motions Nos. 2 to 53.

The House resumed from May 27 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

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my friends across the way what took so long. I ran in the 2006 election and debated candidates who talked about victims' rights. I ran in 2008 and debated other candidates who talked about victims' rights. Now it is finally before the House. This will come as a great shock, but the New Democrats will support sending the bill to committee. We believe that if members want to listen to us and work with us, we will find a way to make the bill even better.

We can actually work together if we try, if all sides want to work together on such a bill, because it is an important bill. If we think about it, it outlines federal rights for victims of crime to be informed, to be protected, to participate, and to receive compensation. I understand there is not much said in the bill about how much compensation the government will provide.

Another aspect of the bill that concerns us, and we may be able to work that out in committee, is that it does not establish any legal obligations for those working in the criminal justice system to implement any of the rights that are aforementioned in the bill, which is very troubling.

The Conservatives say that they truly want to make victims a priority. I am in my ninth year here, and I hear this regularly from the other side. We will take them at their word. Instead of photo ops and all the announcements about what they will do, let us get down to business, let us get to work and do it.

The NDP has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims, victims groups and experts in the field in order to determine how we can best assist the people who are the victims. Members will hear me say many times in this speech that we should work together on this and get this done. Instead of the push and shove that occurs in this place so often, when we talk about victims's rights, we should all agree. Hopefully, we will find a way to get through this together.

With the Conservatives, the devil is always in the details. Therefore, until it goes to committee and there is a fulsome discussion, we will reserve our judgment on the bill. Hopefully, the committee will hear experts and victims. Those are the people who have lived these situations.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is an active participant in Justice Canada's consultations for victims. The suggestion was that we had to have a conclusive and applicable statement, integrated, accessible and simple resources and services that would establish baseline standards across the country. After all, this is the federal Government of Canada and equality before the law across our country is very important. There has to be an inclusion of the definition of “victim”, encompassing all persons who have suffered from crimes committed in Canada, fair, respectful and adaptive rights, something to which we should all relate. Victims should have a voice, the ability to take action, the right to be informed, and, as I said a few moments ago, financial support and protections, psychological support mechanisms, and we should limit the ability for offenders to benefit from their crimes or to reoffend.

At first glance, the bill responds to some of those requests by widening the definition of “victims of crime”, by codifying rights to be protected, to participate and to receive compensation. However, the bill does not designate legal obligations on 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.

For example, complaints directed at provincial and territorial organizations, including the police, the Crown and victims' rights organizations, will be processed directly under the appropriate provincial or territorial laws. No specific funds have yet been attributed to the implementation of these mechanisms for examining complaints or to help out the provinces.

Are we creating some kind of two-tier system where the federal government will pay for some of it and the province will have to pay for some of it? This is an example of the kinds of questions we would like to see answered at committee. Maybe we need to have some amendments made to the bill to make it better. Only time will tell.

The NDP very clearly wants victims to have access to the services and supports they deem they need. That would require investment and partnership with the provinces, not just press conferences and some of the hot air we have heard for the last eight years. We recognize that for many victims, having assurances that they can participate in sentencing and parole hearings and being informed of the status of the prosecution are very important steps. That said, we want the government to provide real support and processes that will work, not just measures that it thinks will score political points.

We are looking at the details of the bill very closely. I want to reach across the aisle one more time and say to the government that we are looking at these details and want to work with it on this very important bill.

I have a story I want to tell. Lori Triano-Antidormi is the mother of a murdered child. That child was murdered two blocks from my home. The child was a couple of years old. The daycare worker took the child out for a walk and a woman, who all of us in the community knew was troubled, decided that day that the child contained the soul of her child. She killed the child to release her child to her once again. Obviously, that is a terribly sad story.

However, I want to talk about the strength of this mother. She said, “Not everyone believes the bill will be effective”. She thinks the bill will create false hope for victims. She is not only a victim of a crime, but is now a psychologist, 20-odd years later, so she treats others.

She also said:

My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system...She says that, right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. “The crown has the final say.” Government change would 'only fuel vengeance.

That is quite a statement for a mother who has lost a child, to have the depth of personality to say that. I have had the good fortune of meeting her.

If the government were to make that change, she is sure it would fuel vengeance in the victim, which from a psychological perspective, her trade being psychology. It does not help the healing and recovery. This is one of the reasons it is important for us to listen to victims of crime, because not all victims of crime are seeking vengeance. They are seeking a better way of dealing with crime in our communities so it does not happen in the first place.

There is another fairly well-known victim. Sheldon Kennedy is a name that has been spoken in this place before. Several victims' advocates were on hand for an announcement, including Sheldon Kennedy, who was sexually abused by his minor league coach. His words were:

I’m not naive to think that we’re going to flip a switch and everything’s going to be better...But being able to have this announcement...is going to start 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.

It is not about what we do with a person in jail; it is what we do to prevent people being victimized in the first place. Therefore, when we are at committee, when we are looking at the bill and talking about the rights of our citizens, we have to take into account how as a society, how as a government, we are going to put the resources into place to prevent these terrible crimes where people, children, are victimized so many times.

As a person who at one point in my life was assaulted by an individual, I know what it feels like to be a victim. It is not pleasant. It is more important that we understand in advance and find those places in society to make the difference so we will not have victims who pay prices they should not have to pay.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased to be able to ask my hon. colleague a question. His speech moved me because he expressed something very important to me, as a member of Parliament, namely the opportunity or this hope to work together. I commend that aspect of his speech.

He also talked about the fact that it is better to prevent than to cure. He also talked about how not to further victimize the victims and how to not have victims.

Can my colleague elaborate on that? Also, how could we improve this bill? I know that he already alluded to that. However, I would like him to expand on that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a caring society, part of our role is to say to victims that we will take care of them. The other part of that equation, the other half, is to prevent having victims in the first place. There is that balancing act.

I am optimistic about working with the government at committee on something that is this significant, this important, to everyday Canadians. Have members thought about how significant this really is and how important it is for us to come together to find a way to make this the best possible bill?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague across the way for his very heartfelt, insightful speech. Obviously the member of Parliament has strong empathy for victims, possibly because of the experiences he has had.

That said, could the member outline one or two things he thinks are very important to add to the bill? I think the bill is very strong. It needs to have members on all sides of the House put their ideas forward as well.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for my passion is that my sister was strangled to death when I was two years old. Our family was a victim of a circumstance. This was in 1949. Times were different. Police officers have come so very far from then, but even at that time, the RCMP officers involved did a very good job dealing with our family.

However, again, it is to come to that place of understanding of what motivates and creates these situations and to pre-empt them from ever happening in the first place. In our family's case, it was the mental illness of a family member, but in many cases, it is drug driven or other aspects. There are so many aspects of society we can reach out and touch if we want to do it. The committee is a place where this specific bill can be worked on so that we can accomplish that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was a very moving and affecting speech. The kinds of issues we are talking about here, and the reasons we want to be able to provide rights to victims that are accessible, are on our minds, but of course, we would all rather that the victimization had never taken place at all, particularly in the heart-wrenching story the hon. member shared with us.

I want to ask if he has had a chance to look at the recommendations that have come from the federal ombudsman for victims' rights. There were very few of them that made their way into the bill, and I am wondering if there are any specific ones. One that comes to mind for me is the idea that because there is so much going on that is emotionally wrenching at the time of victimization, there should be a standard printed card. It is a system used in other jurisdictions, I believe in California. It sets out for the victims where to go for help and how one identifies oneself as someone who would continuously get notifications in the train of the correctional process, and so on. I would ask my hon. colleague if he has any thoughts about the recommendations of the federal ombudsman for victims' rights.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is spoken of very often is giving victims a voice, but the other side is financial and psychological support.

For people who have been victims of these types of crimes, particularly where someone's life is lost, or a family member's, their world is destroyed in front of them, and they need all the help they can get. Their community helps, but the government having in place guidance, and having it clearly available to people, is very important.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights.

This historic bill marks the culmination of the government's effort to finally give victims the voice and protection they deserve in Canada's criminal justice system.

I would like to pay particular attention in my speech to the rights and amendments relating to restitution that are designed to address the concerns expressed by many victims regarding the financial burden of crime. I will also discuss the amendment related to the victim surcharge.

We know that victims pay a disproportionate percentage of all costs related to crime. In 2008, a Justice Canada study found that victims pay 83% of the cost of all crime. A more recent Justice Canada study, published in 2013, found that victims also pay 83% of the cost of violent crime.

These findings are shocking. The rights proposed in this bill aim to correct this imbalance and to relieve the victims of some of the financial burden of crime.

On October 30, 2012, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made the following statement about the impact of crime on victims:

These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings. We also hear from victims about their not being able to afford counselling sessions...

Therefore, members will understand that it is fair and logical for criminals to make a contribution and to pay restitution to the victim for the offences committed. Naturally, the provinces provide victim services, but why should honest taxpayers be the only ones to pay?

The Canadian victims bill of rights proposes to clearly indicate that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and has the right to enforce the order as a civil judgment where not paid.

What is the purpose of a restitution order? The Criminal Code states that the purposes and principles of sentencing are to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

Restitution orders, which help cover the victims' monetary losses due to, for example, bodily and psychological harm or damage to property caused by crime, follow these principles.

Restitution has been recognized in modern countries for a long time. In the United Kingdom, the right of a victim's family to compensation in any case of wrongful death was reinstated in legislation in 1946. In the United States, restitution re-emerged in the early 1900s, when new sentencing laws allowed the courts to impose alternatives to incarceration.

In Canada, since its inception in 1892, the Criminal Code has permitted a sentencing court to order compensation for property lost as a result of the commission of an offence.The Canadian provisions governing compensation were mostly unchanged until amendments in 1996 repealed the compensation provisions, replacing them with restitution order provisions. The terminology was changed to reflect that “restitution” refers to payments the offender should make, while “compensation” generally refers to payments from the state.

The amendments proposed in the victims bill of rights would be important for promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and for their acknowledging the harm done to victims. Right now, judges do not have to consider the possibility of a restitution order. The victims are forgotten, because this provision of the Criminal Code is very rarely used. This means that the court ignores the suffering victims often face.

To ensure that the existing legislative framework properly supports these rights, the bill would make a number of amendments to the restitution regime in the Criminal Code.

The current regime in the Criminal Code allows courts to order restitution orders for loss, destruction, or damage to property as well as financial damages resulting from the commission of an offence, such as the loss of income, expenses associated with moving out of a household shared with an offender, or costs associated with identity theft. The amount sought in a restitution order must be readily ascertainable, which means that the amount of the loss is easy to calculate and is not in great dispute.

If the offender fails to pay the restitution as ordered, the Criminal Code allows the victim to whom restitution is owed to file the order in civil court and to have it enforced as a civil judgment. The government believes that restitution orders can be very useful sanctions in achieving the sentencing objectives of acknowledgement and reparation for the harm done to victims.

For some, restitution orders represent a way for offenders to make amends and contribute to society. It can also be a way of reconciling with the victim.

However, there is evidence to suggest that the needs of victims of crime are not being met through the current restitution regime. For example, Statistics Canada reported in 2010-11 that restitution orders form part of 82% of the sentences for crimes against property but are rarely imposed in relation to crimes against a person, only 10%.

In order to ensure that restitution rights stated in the Canadian victims bill of rights are meaningfully realized, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to direct that the judge shall consider ordering restitution as part of an appropriate sentence in all cases. Where the court decided not to order restitution, the bill would require the court to state on the record the reasons for its decision.

For the victims, this is a great improvement because the court will have to ensure that it considers every situation and thus every case that comes before it.

However, before deciding to order the offender to pay the restitution or not, the court would have an obligation to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps had been taken to provide the victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they were seeking restitution for losses or damages.

This is a great improvement because victims will have the opportunity to determine whether they are going to seek damages. They will have the right to be heard and to tell the court about the harm done. In that way, we will give victims one more voice in the justice system. For a victim, being able to obtain a restitution order is another step in the healing process and towards a more normal life.

Let us remember the victims, who pay out of their own pockets for such atrocious expenses as the cleaning of the crime scene, or property destroyed by a thief.

The proposed amendments would also provide victims with an optional form in the Criminal Code to assist them in calculating and describing their readily ascertainable losses. The courts would be allowed to accept this information in other formats, as approved by the court.

A court of law could, on its own initiative or at the prosecutor's request, adjourn the proceedings to give victims a chance either to indicate whether they are seeking restitution or to determine the loss or damage, as long as the adjournment does not hinder the proper administration of justice.

I can summarize in one word what will be gained from updating the restitution scheme: dignity. With this change, the victims' human dignity will be fully recognized. The scheme will more effectively recognize the harm done to victims and will help provide solutions.

One of the fundamental objectives of this bill is to give victims the voice they deserve in the criminal justice system. In the context of restitution, this would be achieved by permitting victims to speak to their readily ascertainable losses in a victim impact statement that is to be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender.

This bill also recognizes that the offender's financial means or inability to pay the restitution order must not by itself prevent a court from ordering a restitution order. This represents a codification of decisions of appellate courts and of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that the means of the offender must be considered along with other factors in determining the totality of the sentence.

The necessity for victims to receive reparation for their losses and damages was the foundation of the proposed reforms regarding the payment of restitution orders.

The proposed amendments would permit the court to either order that the full amount of the restitution order be paid on the day of sentencing or in a specified number of days following sentencing or in accordance with a payment schedule the court determined to be reasonable in the circumstances.

In addition to this approach, the court would provide that in cases of multiple victims who seek restitution, the court would specify the amount payable to each individual, and where applicable, the order of priority in which victims were to be paid. The offender's failure to pay restitution by the day specified in the order or the failure to make a periodic payment required under the order would allow the victim or victims to enter any amount that remains to be paid as a civil judgment in any court of Canada.

I believe that a carefully tailored restitution regime in criminal law would effectively ensure that offenders acknowledge the harm done, provide victims with effective financial reparations, and avoid lengthy civil proceedings.

Another important element of the bill is the proposed amendment relating to the victim surcharge. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on convicted offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected and retained by the provincial and territorial governments and is used to help fund the most important programs and services for victims in the province or territory where the crime occurred.

This money does not go directly to the victim. It is placed in a special fund in the province or territory. The fund, sometimes called a victim assistance fund, is used to provide services and assistance to victims of crime, such as information on the criminal justice system and court processes, referrals to counselling, court support for vulnerable persons, assistance in preparing victim impact statements, and compensation programs.

Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, came into force October 24, 2013. It amended the victim surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code to double the amount an offender must pay when sentenced and ensured that the surcharge is applied in all cases. Bill C-37 came into effect, and it has been reported that some courts are providing exceedingly long periods of time to pay the surcharge, some up to 60 years.

This bill proposes to clarify that courts must require offenders to pay the victim surcharge within the time established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province in which the surcharge is imposed. If no time has been established, the surcharge would be payable within a reasonable time after its imposition.

Judges will therefore have some flexibility to impose victim surcharges, which will have to be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

“Reasonable time” has been interpreted by the courts as a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the case and cannot be decided in the abstract. Reasonable time must allow the debtor to meet the demand. The criteria of “reasonable” would still preserve a certain level of judicial discretion in describing the timing of the payment of the surcharge, but would not allow the debt to extend into an absurd or unreasonable period. This discretion would still allow the judge to take into account the offender's financial and other relevant circumstances in establishing a reasonable time limit for the payment. This approach recognizes the fact that the test of reasonable is used throughout the Criminal Code and, although not defined, is well understood, interpreted, and applied by the courts.

By virtue of subsection 734.7(1) of the Criminal Code, courts continue to have discretion not to commit for imprisonment a person who by reason of poverty cannot pay a fine, even after a reasonable time has been allotted.

I wish to reiterate that the proposed amendments relating to restitution and to surcharges in this particular bill are very important in addressing the concerns expressed by many victims and in meeting the objective to give victims the voice and protection they deserve in the Canadian criminal justice system. I urge all members to join me in supporting the Canadian victims bill of rights.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Bill C-32 needs to be amended, as it is too weak and fails to address many aspects of the problem. The main problem, in her view, is that the proposed charter gives victims rights but provides little in the way of enforcement.

Does the member think, like the ombudsman, that victims should be able to consult a lawyer without delay, so that they can assert their rights?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

The committee will be hearing many witnesses, of course. The ombudsman will surely take part in these discussions. We will listen to each and every recommendation that could help improve the bill and make it more effective.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the justice committee for his speech. I realize the speech focused primarily on the provisions of the bill that deal with restitution and surcharges, but I want to ask him about clause 24 of the bill, which deals with aboriginal justice.

My colleague would know full well that aboriginal people are grossly overrepresented in the prisons of our country, and there is incorporated into the Criminal Code something called the Gladue principles, which require a judge to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment, with particular attention to the circumstances of the aboriginal offenders. This bill actually would alter those principles and now includes the phrase “consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community”, which would change the aboriginal sentencing provisions that were existent in the Criminal Code.

I would be most interested in the comments from my colleague as to the impact on aboriginal justice of clause 24 of this legislation.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a very relevant question and I thank the hon. member for it. Obviously, this bill is not yet proclaimed. It is not in force, and jurisprudence will come forth to interpret the bill. Of course, the importance of the Gladue principles will have to be recognized. Certainly they will be made the intent of the bill, as the legislator has intended, while respecting the rights of aboriginals and their communities.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about this legislation. Victims have been asking about it for years.

I am really pleased that my colleague pointed out the restitution provisions in the bill, because we need to recognize the enormous cost of crime upon victims in Canada. My colleague also mentioned the victims surcharge and other issues. I wonder if he could tell us how the bill would be implemented and what funding might be available for its implementation.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many other means of funding the provisions of this legislation other than the funding that has been allocated through the federal government. There is the victim surcharge, which has been doubled and now has become mandatory. There has been some debate as to the length of time to pay that, which would be clarified through the proposed bill. We recognize that there is a cost to giving victims a greater voice and greater participation in the justice system.

As my learned friend has said, it is long overdue that the bill is put in place, and the costs are warranted and will be dealt with efficiently by the government.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us are taking the bill very seriously.

One of the concerns I have with Bill C-32 is that it would create a certain expectation, but there is no legal obligation with respect to the bill within the judicial system. That leaves me questioning whether that would raise the expectations of victims when we have not really resolved it.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it would be raising their expectations, but this legislation is premised on four main tenets. One is notification, notifying the victims of what is going on through the process. They are participating through it; they are made aware of the proceedings and counselled to go through it. Nothing can be worse than the fear of the unknown and not being guided through it.

There is also the aspect of protecting people who are scared when they are witnesses or when offenders are released. That is paramount. That is after the trial.

Then there is compensation, which is dealt with in the restitution aspects of the bill.

Expectations are high. The provisions are long overdue. The bill would certainly bring some balance to the justice system in favour of the victims, not at the detriment of the offenders, but they will have their just place and voice within the system.