Debates of June 3rd, 2014

Victims Bill of Rights

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that I am very much interested in the bill on victims rights, but I am a little concerned about the emphasis on restitution, because the government at times slips over into an emphasis on the offender rather than the victim. People have to be lucky to be offended against by someone who has enough resources for restitution to do them any good.

I wonder whether in committee we will be talking about efforts to make sure compensation is available to all victims with some kind of federal-provincial deal on victims' criminal injury compensation funds, which do not exist in Newfoundland or in the territories and are under severe caps in most of the provinces. If people are not lucky enough, in that odd sense, to have an offender who has resources, sometimes there is no compensation available through restitution. I hope we will be discussing this at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when a person is a victim, the only luck we can talk about is the bad luck, quite frankly, of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nine of the ten provinces have a victims compensation fund, and the sums are certainly modest. It is not the average perpetrator who has all kinds of resources to compensate the victim. Obviously, efforts are going to be made to analyze, in situations where they can, that it would be appropriate. There are the victims programs where there is the surcharge where it comes into funding.

It is far from a perfect system, but I think we would all agree that it is a step in the right direction. More negotiation with the provinces and territories is going to be required, and the good collaboration of all members of Parliament would be helpful as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the fact that, for the first time, victims would be recognized as victims, and instead of having to bear the burden of being victimized, they would also have the opportunity to understand the process as they go through the trial and also restitution.

Would the parliamentary secretary talk a bit about why this particular legislation is so necessary and why it has been brought forward at this point in time in Canadian history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the consensus is that most victims of crime, when they were put into the judicial system, went there not knowing how the system worked. As I said earlier, nothing can be worse than the fear of the unknown.

Being treated as a piece of the evidence and not with the respect required to participate in a process is not adequate for any human being. It is devoid of all dignity. The way the victims were being treated prior to this cried out for some reparations and some way of treating these people in, at least, an equal fashion to the accused.

That is not to say that the accused are not entitled to rehabilitation and that we should put them in jail and throw away the key. However, the victims could be piloted through this system in which they find themselves through no fault of their own, and have some certainty of what the process is. They could potentially receive some reparation, if at all possible. Obviously, not every perpetrator will be of the millionaire sort.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this important bill, Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts. We have indicated New Democrats will be supporting the bill at second reading, and we are looking forward to studying the bill in committee.

We have also made it clear that changes, such as a number of the ones that are suggested in the bill, are long overdue. We know this very clearly from victims, from advocates, from victims ombudsmen, current and past. We know it is the right thing to do in order for victims to have a sense of justice and be able to move forward.

However, we have also flagged the real concern that, like much of what the government commits to, it will not actually materialize, particularly when it comes to resources. We have indicated concern that the federal government does not have a real plan when it comes to the question of resources that would be required, including restitution and/or compensation, and that discussions with provinces and territories are not taking place the way they ought so that all Canadians, no matter where they live, can have equitable access.

Today I would like to talk about the incredible disconnect between what the government is saying and its commitment to victims, and the fact that the government has been notoriously inactive when it comes to prevention of violence in our country.

I am very passionate about violence against women. As the status of women critic for the NDP, I have had the opportunity to meet with women who have suffered violence and survived violence. I have met with women who work in women's shelters, women who advocate on behalf of women who are survivors. I have met lawyers who support these women's pursuit of justice in the courts, and I have met with far too many Canadians, women and men, who feel the devastating impact of violence against women.

The situation, in terms of violence against women in our own country, a country where Canadians believe we are to be equal, I would only describe as being alarming. For example, half of all Canadian women have experienced physical or sexual abuse. The number from Statistics Canada indicates that at least half of the women over the age of 18 across the country have experienced physical or sexual violence.

I want to indicate that the survey was a one-time only survey and took place in 1993, so sadly we do not have more up-to-date information, but there are strong indications that the numbers have not changed.

Sexual assault and partner violence costs the country $9 billion per year. Partially, there is a lack of data. The CCPA released a report earlier this year titled, “The Gap and the Gender Gap: Violence Against Women in Canada”. That report attempted to total up all the costs, from the justice system to health care, incurred due to sexual assault and intimate partner violence, pegging the figure at $9 billion, around $334 per person per year. These victims were mostly women.

Just to give us a very realistic understanding of the cost of violence, and we are not talking about the emotional cost or the psychological cost or even the physical cost on one person, it costs each Canadian $334 to cope with this violence, to deal with this violence. It is an expensive proposition and one that we can certainly do without if we do our job when it comes to prevention.

More than 3,000 women stay in shelters on a given night to escape abuse. Based on surveys filled out by most of the approximately 600 residential shelter facilities in Canada, Stats Canada studies found that on a given night, about 3,300 women across the country were sleeping in shelters to escape abuse.

About 420 women are turned away each day, half of them because the shelters they are trying to access are full. Other reasons for refusing admission include mental health issues and drug-related impairments.

Those are sobering statistics that 420 women each day, very often later in the day, are turned away from shelters. It is not because shelter staff do not want them. It is not because administrators do not see the urgency to deal with the situation. It is because, oftentimes, these shelters are struggling for funds and they do not have the capacity.

While provinces like Manitoba make a real investment in women's shelters, sadly, the federal government has pulled away from supporting programming and core funding for the kind of work that is necessary.

Another statistic is that women are 11 times more likely to be victims of sexual offences. Extrapolating from police reports, Statistics Canada reported earlier in 2013 that violent crime against women was about 5% higher than it was for men, but women were 11 times more likely to suffer a sexual offence than men were and were three times more likely to be the victim of criminal harassment. This provides a very clear understanding of the way in which violence affects women differently and the way in which different kinds of violence are used to victimize women.

We also know that young women are most at risk. The same Statistics Canada report, in 2013, found that the rate of reported violent crime against women between the ages of 15 and 24 was 42% higher than it was for women between 25 and 34 and almost double the rate for women between 35 and 44.

One more final fact to add is that thousands of children are exposed to partner violence. Estimates of the precise number of children exposed each year in Canada to partner violence range widely, from about 120,000 to a high of 800,000. Regardless of the exact number, there is a body of research that suggests that children who witness such violence are more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes, according to Statistics Canada. These include increased risks of emotional behaviour and cognitive and social problems, with more severe outcomes for younger children.

There are six key facts that indicate that violence against women, and the impacts on children, men, families, communities, and our economy cannot be ignored.

As much as the victims bill of rights is important in individual cases, we know from experts who have testified already, and we are sure to hear from others, that this is not the end game and that there needs to be a comprehensive prevention strategy. That is why I am proud to have put forward a motion in this House calling for a national action plan to end violence against women.

I am not sure how many members of the government know, but Canada is the only country among like-minded countries that does not have a national action plan to end violence against women. It is shameful.

We know that violence against women is a part of our daily reality, that it is a part of our shameful reality, that in Canada, despite the gains that we have made as women, we are subjected to violence at greater rates than men, different kinds of violence, and that we continue to suffer day in and day out.

While we are going to hear, undoubtedly, as the bill goes on, more pronouncements from the government that it cares about victims, I would ask where its compassion is on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women. When we talk about violence against women, there is a particular racial reality, which is that indigenous women in Canada face much greater rates of violence simply because they are indigenous women.

We know from an RCMP report that came out a couple of short weeks ago that indigenous women in Canada face four times more violence than non-indigenous women. We know that young indigenous women are five times more likely to be killed than non-aboriginal women. These facts are startling. They are startling in abstraction, but I would say that they are horrifying in reality.

As someone who comes from a part of the country that has been deeply affected by the tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women, I have seen what it means. I have seen the way families break, the way communities are traumatized, the way people are set back. That trauma and that pain are only exacerbated every time a family member or someone who knows about this issue turns on the TV and sees the latest pronouncement by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the Prime Minister that no, there does not need to be an inquiry, or that no, there does not need to be more action, because the government is doing enough, or that no, they do not have to look at the systemic issues, the systemic sexism and the systemic racism that are behind the high rates of violence against indigenous women.

We know that the 1,200 aboriginal women the RCMP have said have gone missing or have been murdered over the last 30 years means that over 30 women every year did not come home to their families. We know that they are sisters, mothers, daughters, cousins. We know that each one of these women lived in circumstances that often were out of their control and that put them at greater risk. They were often marginalized.

When I hear about a victims bill of rights, and when I hear the government's pronouncements when it comes to caring about victims, I want to see the government take that extra step and deal with what is a national tragedy, that of missing and murdered indigenous women, and call a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. I would like to see it commit to an action plan, including a national action plan, so that we prevent having more victims.

I think of one of the many rallies I have attended here on Parliament Hill, where I saw a little aboriginal girl hold up a sign with a hole in it where she put her face, and the sign said, “Am I next?” These are haunting images. This girl has a greater chance of being a victim, the very issue the Conservatives say they care so much about. She knows that she is at greater risk simply because of her identity, because of the colour of her skin, and because of her gender. In a country like Canada, that is shameful. It is shameful to see the way the current government turns its back on aboriginal women, on women in too many cases, and yet continues the rhetoric that somehow this bill or the answers in question period are enough to put a stop to what we are facing.

I am echoing our support for what is in this bill and our real hope that at committee, we can add to this bill and improve it and react to the gaps that clearly exist, particularly in terms of resources. However, I would ask that the Conservatives listen to their own message and their own compassion, as they call it, toward victims. I ask that they take action where it really matters and look at the systemic nature of the violence women face in our country, that aboriginal women face, and that too many communities still face, and deal with the root causes.

We talk about victims after the fact, after the act of violence, the crime or the assault, has taken place. I wonder how much time members of the government take to look at the background of why there are higher levels of violence in certain parts of the country or why there is a greater propensity for there to be criminal acts in certain parts of the country. It is no secret. We have heard from experts who come to Parliament who point to the higher levels of poverty and marginalization among certain populations. I think of the first nations I represent.

I think of the way too many people in these first nations struggle for a basic quality of life. They live in third world living conditions. Their whole community has no running water. People live in mouldy, overcrowded homes with 17 people to a house.

Because of the history of colonization, people have been forced onto reserves that often have very limited capacity for economic development, so the levels of unemployment are outrageous. It can be as high as 80% or more. That means that the sense of economic marginalization people face is extreme. This is coupled with a history of residential schools, where children were taught to wipe away identity, culture, and pride in an attempt to assimilate them. All of these things were very much supported by the government. Those heinous acts have contributed to intergenerational impacts.

Too many people feel marginalized. Too many people experience social breakdown in their communities. Sadly, because of the way our justice system and even our police system have often responded, the element of systemic racism has also emerged. People, because of their identity, because of the colour of their skin, have been treated unfairly.

We know that aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal men, are more highly represented in our prison system. We know that this has everything to do with their living conditions and the way they have been marginalized economically, socially, and culturally in our country, yet the government's response has been to cut important programs, whether it is the prison farms, life skills programming, or healing programming. I think of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which the government also got rid of.

I wonder how much Conservatives actually care about victims or preventing the emergence of other victims if they are cutting the very programs that allow people to gain strength, to heal, to become healthier, and to pull away from violence or violent situations.

I think of the lack of access to treatment programs in my constituency. People come from across Manitoba and across the country to get treatment and heal from drug addiction and alcohol abuse at the medicine lodge in Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. I know that there has been a difficult relationship with the federal government in terms of ongoing funding, despite the overwhelming success of this program. The federal government and the Prime Minister have not been steadfast supporters of a type of programming that is sure to prevent violence and abuse in communities across the country.

Just last week, I gathered with leaders and health professionals in Manitoba to demand that the federal government renew its commitment to maternal health programming for aboriginal women. It made a commitment to women around the world while ignoring aboriginal women here at home. These kinds of supports lift women up from conditions of poverty and marginalization. They support and restore the relationship to that next generation so that they build healthier relationships, build stronger families, and prevent the kind of violent or difficult situations that too many families have faced.

In conclusion, I have indicated our position as a party on the bill, but our position is clear that support for victims means preventing the existence of more victims. It means investing in Canadians. It means bringing people in from the margins. It means building a better country for all of us.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very heartfelt speech. I know we can always depend on her to represent the interests of her constituents and those who are less fortunate in our society.

I know that previously the government placed a lot of emphasis on restitution and pursuing the offender through the courts. I know that we have seen recommendations from the victims ombudsman that this is something that is not likely to be profitable and is very difficult for people to pursue.

I wonder if the member has anything she would like to say on this reliance on restitution.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a very strong advocate when it comes to not just victims' rights, but holding the government to account and encouraging it to move past the rhetoric toward making a difference on the ground.

He raised a critical point. The most recent opposition to the government's emphasis on restitution and punishment in monetary terms has been from lawyers and even judges, who have indicated that there is a major number of offenders who live in abject poverty and cannot afford restitution, as the government puts it. Punishing people in these ways only contributes to the cycle of violence. This can also be a very traumatic experience for victims who have already clearly been traumatized and live with immense challenges. To see this unfold would further exacerbate that kind of trauma. When it comes to compensation in the financial piece, will the government step up?

Sadly, in the past, when it came to legislation that required financial commitment, no matter what the area might be, there had been a lot of talk by the government and no action. We have also been very clear that engagement with the provinces and territories has not existed, not just on this issue but, frankly, on almost anything the government does. Depending on where one lives, there might be greater access to compensation simply because of where the person lives, which is not the Canadian way.

We are asking the federal government to show leadership and to commit to working with the NDP at committee to address these gaps and truly stand up for victims.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of themes she raised, one with respect to poverty and the other with respect to the mixed jurisdictions in terms of jurisdiction over the Criminal Code and jurisdiction over the administration of justice.

With regard to her comments on poverty, while we also support this bill, we see some potential problems that we hope will be addressed in committee. One of them the member has referred to, and that is this problem that the government has with respect to the constitutionality of many of its pieces of criminal legislation and the action that is being taken by judges, particularly with respect to victim surcharges.

I would ask for any comments the member would care to make with respect to the potential constitutional challenges around the victim surcharge provisions contained in the bill.

The other point that she touched upon, and that I would invite her to elaborate further on, is that this bill would actually impose costs on the provinces to the extent that it would introduce a complaints mechanism and a right to information mechanism. Given that the administration and prosecution of Criminal Code offences in provinces, not in territories, is done and funded by the provinces, it is effectively a download or an additional expense that will be incurred by the provinces.

I would be quite interested in her thoughts on federal-provincial consultation and the potential download of costs that would be the result of the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising two important dimensions here. I appreciate that, earlier this evening, he referred to the need to respect the Gladue decision and the constitutional obligation to abide by that decision.

It connects with the question of “victim surcharges” and recognizing that people, particularly many aboriginal people, are so far in the situations of marginalization and poverty. This kind of model is unrealistic, and it would cause further marginalization and potential trauma.

This is absolutely a critical area that needs to be discussed, including the potential for constitutional challenges if the adequate changes are not made.

To the second point, sadly, the federal government has shown time and time again that it is not interested in working with provinces and territories on a host of different issues. We have seen the downloading, from health care to post-secondary education, to first nations programming, in many ways.

In terms of justice and cost, the administering of justice Bill S-2, another bill that the government is very proud of talking about, is an excellent example of the way that costs are being incurred by provincial justice departments to be able to comb through and apply the new matrimonial property rights law that the federal government has brought in. There is no aspect of the legislation that indicates that the government would support these costs or contribute to them at the provincial level. It simply goes ahead and says that this is how it has to get done.

That is not how Canada was built. It certainly challenges the notion of a confederate system and the Confederation that we are all a part of.

I hope that in committee, there is a steadfast commitment that the government is able to make to working with the provinces and making a difference for Canadians, no matter where they live.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to the member's comments, and I found some of them rather disappointing.

For the first time in Canadian history, we would have a victims bill of rights that should be collaboratively put together by all sides of the House. It is not a political football. It is recognizing right now that victims do have rights.

I, personally, have worked with many victims who have been in courts and who are absolutely devastated by what happened to them. They had no one. They did not know how the process worked. They did not have any hope of restitution in any way, shape, or form.

What I have heard tonight is concern for the perpetrator who might not have the money to pay the restitution. I would ask the member across the way to consider the fact that knowing that there is some restitution involved when someone is victimized, maybe the perpetrator would stop for a minute and think that committing the crime against the victim would not be a good thing.

Having said that, I wonder if the member opposite could consider that we are considering victims here, and if she could talk about the victims a little bit and how this would help them. Could she talk about what she could contribute to enhance it in such a way that victims could be reassured that members on all sides of the House are on their side?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member was disappointed. I was sent here by my constituents and as part of the NDP to speak out on their behalf.

I have been very clear on both the strengths and the major gaps and weaknesses that exist in this bill. It is incumbent on the government, instead of just sticking to good-sounding rhetoric, to actually step up. It should not just support this bill in terms of financing, but also make a real financial commitment to preventing violence and abuse in our country.

That starts by preventing more victims, investing in prevention, calling a national inquiry into missing and murdered women, looking to pull everyone out of the margins, and looking out for Canadians' well-being every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I know it is getting late, but I would like to take this opportunity to share my views and take part in the debate on bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

In light of what is proposed in the bill, I think that we, as legislators, must all unite and support this government initiative. However, in my humble opinion, the bill does not go far enough in protecting the rights of the victims, and several experts share this view. I will come back later to the reasons why I think the bill should be improved.

Nevertheless, it is certainly a first step in the right direction, and we will be able to propose amendments in committee and at a later time, when the act is reviewed after being implemented, to identify what needs to be improved.

Therefore, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the victims of crime in a meaningful way, and that they will make sure that this bill of rights does not remain just a statement of principles with no actual effect.

In its current form, Bill C-32 codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution under the Canadian victims bill of rights. It also amends the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canada Evidence Act to incorporate these rights.

More specifically, the bill broadens the definition of “victim”, which will include any individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss, and clarifies the fact that a victim's spouse can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf. This applies to conjugal relationships having lasted for at least a year. I think this provision is critical to enhancing protection and fairness for victims.

Second, the bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to see a photograph of the offender at the time of the offender's release, to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.

This provision will help prevent potentially traumatic situations should the victim inadvertently come into contact with the offender. It also permits the disclosure of information that the victim can use to make informed decisions about how to live his life once the offender has completed his sentence. For example, the victim might make decisions based on the offender's release date.

Bill C-32 also amends the Criminal Code to ensure that the court informs victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor once the plea of guilty has been accepted.

These changes will enable witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in some cases, make publication bans for witnesses under the age of 18 mandatory, permit victims who do not attend an offender's parole hearing to listen to an audio recording of the hearing, and enable witnesses speaking on a victim's behalf to have with them a photograph of the victim if it would not disrupt judicial proceedings.

Another change has to do with the Canada Evidence Act and states 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 creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated.

It 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.

This is an entire series of measures that will likely bring the debate back to victims' rights, if the measures are applied. On the other hand, I see two major gaps that, in my opinion, should prompt my colleagues to work together to give this bill more teeth in order to truly bring justice to victims of crime.

Bill C-32 creates no legal obligation for justice system stakeholders to implement these rights. The charter only provides for but does not guarantee access to a rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated.

To date, no specific amount of money seems to be allocated to implement complaint review mechanisms or to help the provinces with this. If the Conservatives are serious and want to do more than make grand announcements at press conferences, then Bill C-32 would set out legal requirements.

My other concern refers to the same point, the fact that there does not seem to be any financial resources set aside for this initiative. How can the government consider providing protection, financial support or psychological support, as proposed in the bill, without a budget?

It is important that victims have access to the support and the services they need. We must invest and work with the provinces. The government must ensure that it provides the kind of support that is needed. It must implement procedures that will really help the victims and avoid proposing measures just to score political points.

Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, feels that the Conservative government's Bill C-32 should be amended because it could be stronger and it overlooks many aspects of the problem. She believes that the Conservative bill could improve Canada's penal system, but many of the measures could be far more forceful. In addition, many other issues affecting victims of crime were not even addressed.

She feels that this bill is problematic because the charter gives rights to victims of crime but provides little in the way of enforcement.

The ombudsman would like to see victims receive prompt redress by having access to a lawyer so that they can assert their rights during criminal proceedings. The ombudsman feels that the safety of victims is still a definite priority.

The NDP will always support victims in their quest for justice. We are mindful that those who have suffered are likely in the best position to educate us about what they need. They have lived through some potentially heinous experiences.

That is why we will continue consulting them and consulting victims' rights groups. By talking to those concerned, we will be able to create fair and effective legislation. I have no doubt that my colleagues will carefully consider any opportunities to improve the bill at committee stage.

The committee must ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights works well with our justice system and that it addresses victims' expectations and recommendations. The government has taken eight years to get to work on a 2006 election promise. Victims have suffered enough.

I invite all of my colleagues to roll up their sleeves so that we can offer Canadian victims the protection and rights that will help them find justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was her second this evening.

I should point out that many NDP members have made speeches in the House this evening. However, many members of the other parties have remained very silent. In the last six hours, I think I heard only one Conservative member. Frankly, I think that this bill deserves a much more rigorous debate than what we have seen so far this evening. I am therefore wondering why the Conservatives were in such a hurry to force us to sit until midnight when, in fact, they have nothing to say.

However, my colleague has raised some very interesting points that deserve our attention.

Court decisions have shown that, when a person has no means to make restitution to a victim, that in fact is not a restitution. Moreover, a restitution risks being a sanction that adds to a sanction already handed down by the court or the Superior Court.

How could we have a bill that does not come with an envelope and that does not propose any funding for victims?

Restitutions to victims are monetary in nature. According to the Supreme Court, a restitution that an accused cannot afford to pay is a mechanical restitution, which should not exist.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that perspective is actually quite interesting. We, in the NDP, want victims to have access to the support and services that they need.

Some members have been calling for years for the government to deal with the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and commission an inquiry. Those women are among the victims of crime. This has to be done in co-operation with aboriginal nations.

We also have to work with the provinces. I am sure that the Conservatives are aware that some processes for victims of crime already exist, including in the province of Quebec. Those people also receive financial support. If they cannot afford to hire a lawyer, they are assigned one. Some community organizations also look after victims of crime. Our province has gone quite far in that area.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I found perplexing in recent days is that the opposition House leader seems to have the perplexing notion that when the NDP members are filibustering bills, there is some obligation on the part of other parties to join them in that process and do the exact same thing. He is complaining of silence from the other side because we are not filibustering our own bills. Needless to say, on the government side, we think the bill is good and we have stated our position clearly. Let us get on with it and let it advance. If we think it is a good thing, Canadians want to have it in place.

My question for the hon. member is a very simple one. Since the NDP wants to see this go to committee, since much debate has already occurred, would the hon. member agree that the best way to get the bill to advance, as her party wants to have it advance, is to allow the debate to come to a conclusion so we can vote on it and send it to committee and that way help out victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have heard that member say such a thing. It even sounds like a broken record.

He is skipping a step. We have to have our say. If my constituents have never heard of Vanessa's law, it is because I never had the chance to speak to it in the House. It is important not to skip that step. Maybe the member has been in politics for such a long time that he does not feel like doing it anymore, but we need to express our views and our constituents need to know what we are talking about. The only way to communicate with our constituents is to be able to explain bills, whether they are Conservative bills or ours. This is totally democratic. What is undemocratic is limiting our ability to speak on a regular basis.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will have only four minutes before we break for the evening.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important topic. Of course I am disappointed to be speaking on it somewhere near midnight.

I would like to start by thanking the House staff, the pages, the security people, the bus drivers, all of those who are supporting us in these midnight sittings.

Having heard the comments by the government House leader just a few minutes ago, I will have to try to condense everything into four minutes because it sounds a bit like he is about to move time allocation on this bill, which would not surprise me because there are hardly any bills left to move it on. Therefore, I will try to make my points as quickly as I can.

The New Democrats support victims' rights. We have supported the private members' bills that have come forward. We have voted for those bills. We will be voting for Bill C-479 when it comes forward, and we will support this bill going to committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Do it now.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a member on the other side say, “Do it now”. I am not on the committee that this bill will go to and I have a very strong interest in victims' rights.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I'm sure the whip will suck you in.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to represent my constituents and this is my opportunity to do that, whether or not the government House leader continues to heckle me about it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Same speech all night long. Wrap it up.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is going to distract me, but this is really what it is all about. When members want to actually represent their constituents, we hear from the other side “shut up”, “wrap it up”, “sit down”, “we don't want to hear from you”, yet the people who are advocates of the bill are telling us they want dialogue on it. How can we have dialogue on the bill when people on the other side are telling me to sit down and be quiet? It does not make any sense to me.

I am also concerned that sometimes when we talk about victims' rights, we focus too much on their role in the legal system and we forget about the other needs of victims. Victims quite often need compensation for time lost at work, compensation for their real material losses, counselling and other things which are quite expensive. As I said earlier in one of my questions, the government's solution to that in this bill is to rely on restitution. I am disappointed to hear the member say that means I am worried about someone who cannot pay the restitution. I am not. I am worried about the victim who will get nothing out of the restitution process.

I am already out of time. Probably because of time allocation, I will not get to speak again. It is very disappointing, because this is an important bill on which dialogue could lead to much improvement.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Recognizing the clock as being at midnight, we will move on to the next order of business.