Debates of June 6th, 2014

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 3 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 Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-32 this afternoon. It is really interesting to be able to stand and recognize that the government has actually done a fairly good job on this piece of legislation. It is one of those things for which time allocation should not be required. It is one of things that, I believe, is not controversial.

I would look to the minister, who has done a fairly decent job in bringing the legislation forward. From what I understand through our critic, the minister reached out to different regions of our country to get a better sense of what this bill should look like and, ultimately, brought in the legislation.

I cannot help but think that there are, no doubt, many other pieces of legislation that would have benefited from the same sort of attitude in terms of reaching out to Canadians for input. In particular, there are the changes to the Elections Act that we had.

It is important to recognize that this legislation would build upon previous work from the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien governments. Victims' rights have always been important. In fact, our critic provided me with one document that makes reference to a revised version of the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, which was done in 2003. That provided great detail on the principles to guide legislators and service providers in the promotion of access to justice, fair treatment, and the provision of assistance for victims of crime.

Just given the number of points that are listed here, there might be some value in me reading the list. The document, referenced in the preamble to the victims bill of rights now before the House, identified the following principles as intended to promote the fair treatment of victims.

They are as follows:

1. Victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

2. The privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible.

3. All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims.

4. The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation.

5. Information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes.

6. Victims should be given information, in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress and final outcome of the proceedings; and the status of the offender in the correctional system.

7. Information should be provided to victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation.

8. The views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures.

9. The needs, concerns and diversity of victims should be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services, and in related education and training.

10. Information should be provided to victims about available options to raise their concerns when they believe that these principles have not been followed.

In 2005, the Liberal government announced new initiatives to support victims of crime, including allowing victims to apply for financial assistance to attend the national parole board hearings of the offenders who had harmed them.

I think it is fair to say that members of the House, as a whole, though I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, have long been concerned about victims and understand and appreciate the importance of ensuring that as much as possible is done to take into consideration the rights of victims. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Liberals find ourselves supporting Bill C-32. As I have indicated, the bill would continue to build upon other government initiatives in a very positive fashion.

The Liberal Party critic pointed out at second reading that the bill was broken into two major areas. The first is the Canadian victims bill of rights, which would specify that victims of a crime would have a right to information about the criminal justice system. He used the example that the bill would provide access to some elements regarding the status of a particular investigation. It would include measures to protect the security and privacy of victims. As well, it would ensure that victims would be shielded from any form of intimidation. The bill would also provide victims, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the right to convey their views and have them considered, as well as to make victim impact statements and seek restitution orders.

I will pause here to say that I had an opportunity, in a much smaller capacity, to serve in a very rewarding way on a youth justice committee. We were moving in the direction on how we could get victims more involved in dispositions and we felt that in certain situations, it would be appropriate, if at all possible, to invite the participation of victims. An example might be where a young person vandalized or stolen from an individual or company and the circumstances around the meeting with the youth in question would allow the victim to be brought before the justice committee, along with the youth, to work together in coming up with a disposition.

We found a great sense of accomplishment when both the victims and the perpetrators felt, through that process, that the disposition was appropriate, particularly from the victims' perspective. They saw justice being applied first hand. I was not directly involved because I was the chair of the committee, but on a couple of occasions when I was directly involved, the victims felt wonderful about the opportunity to be engaged in the process and to be a part of it.

The bill specifies, when these types of rights apply, who can exercise them, how complaints are to be treated, and the interpretation of this act relative to other acts. It is important to note, even though those are the two major aspects of the legislation, that some other amendments are being proposed. When I had the opportunity to go through them, I thought allowing victims the right to seek publication bans was interesting and quite important for us to recognize. That change would ensure that harm of victims would be considered also in sentencing.

There is a number of reasons why we should be satisfied with the legislation as proposed. This is not to say that the government could not have done a better job in the drafting of the legislation prior to going to committee.

Some concerns were expressed, and I will point out the three that have been provided to me.

One is that the bill provides for enhanced information sharing, but does not outline the responsibility for this in specific terms. This is an area we thought had fallen short during second reading debate.

I also note, through presentations that were made and feedback received, that it does not address the fact that most victims do not know they need to register with the Parole Board or Correctional Services Canada to receive information about the offenders who have harmed them.

The third point is that the bill would allow for certain victims to be informed of a plea bargain, but would not allow victims to have a say before a plea would be accepted.

These are some of the views that were expressed by the Victims Rights Ombudsman and others, both formally and informally, and raised with the Liberal Party, committee members and so forth.

We need to recognize that the victims' rights are of the utmost importance, but I want to conclude my remarks by making a general observation with regard to victims as a whole.

I believe that there is so much more the government could do to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. The government needs to start investing more time and energy into this.

Yesterday was wonderful. We were able to debate fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the chamber. If this disorder were identified at any earlier stage, it would go a long way in assisting some in avoiding the justice system.

There are some simple things that could be done. I get frustrated very quickly when I hear many different stories and concerns from Winnipeg North. I get frustrated in the sense that we have been unable to better provide for Canadians as a whole. However, for me specifically at this moment and for residents of Winnipeg North, we should try to come up with alternatives for our young people, in particular, that would take them away from gangs. I do not think the government does enough in that regard. What other alternatives through programming might we be able to provide?

I recognize there are different roles and responsibilities, depending on the level of government, but the national government has a strong role to play in the coordination, ensuring that the different stakeholders are brought together, that dialogue occurs, that there is a sense of best practices that occur in the many different jurisdictions and communities.

The current government has fallen short on this. The Prime Minister believes that the least involvement of government, the better it is for society as a whole. That approach can be best seen in a wide variety of actions, or lack of actions, by the Government of Canada, but in certain areas, it can even more so. A couple that come to mind right away are health care and justice.

When I was first elected in a by-election, one of the primary, if not most important, messages I wanted to convey to members of this privileged chamber was that people in our communities needed to feel safe. However, there are certain areas or pockets across the country where that sense of security in one's home is challenged at times.

If the government really wanted to make a difference, it could do so in a more tangible way. I will give a couple of examples of that. It is all about how we might be able to prevent future victims.

One of the things that really frustrated me was issues related to community policing. It was quite upsetting when we had community police offices in Winnipeg's north end being closed down. It did not matter whether it was the provincial or national government, and to a certain extent the municipal government, but no one seemed to stand and say that it was not the direction in which to should go.

We have had former chiefs of police in Winnipeg indicate very clearly that community policing works and can be effective. I know first hand just how effective it can be. When we collectively allowed community policing to be closed down, we really allowed for more victims in the future.

Through community policing, as an example, we will find that it is better able to work with young people and get a sense of where the problem areas are. In doing so, it is able to prevent crimes from taking place. I believe this would have made a difference.

I can recall when the current Prime Minister came up with a pot of money to be used to increase the number of police officers. I understand that money was given to the different provinces. However, in Manitoba, that money was just put aside. I do not know if it was ever used, but it was a commitment that came from Ottawa saying that it wanted to see more police out on the streets in our communities.

Well, that did not happen, even though Ottawa wanted allocated money for it. It was because there was no sense of co-operation from Ottawa and the province to ensure that in fact would happen. Instead, we saw a pot of money put to the side, and the province did not act on the initiative with the city of Winnipeg.

That was unfortunate. Whatever the arguments might have been, the bottom line was, who paid the cost?

The Prime Minister, on the one hand, said that the government would put more police on the streets, but, on the other hand, he was not successful at that because he did not work with the different stakeholders. At the time, it meant that the police officers he promised never materialized, at least not in a timely fashion. As a result, we might have lost the opportunity to have prevented some crimes from taking place. This is what it really boils down to. There needs to be more co-operation with the federal government and the different stakeholders to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

If I could send a message to the Prime Minister today, it would be that we need to take a more holistic approach in dealing with crime in our communities and provide the type of programming that will make a difference to prevent victims in the first place and to prevent crimes.

That is what I think we need to start getting tough on, the causes of crime.

I look forward to future budgets in which we will see this as more of a priority and in which there will be an allocation to prevent crime from taking place in the first place.

Bill C-24—Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise not in relation to questions and comments but rather to provide the following notice to the House.

I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

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

Victims Bill of Rights

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague.

This is another bill coming forward from the government. They talk about getting tough on crime.

What I have seen a lot of, especially in terms of the private members' bills coming forward, is that the government comes in with a bill that looks like it will do A, B, C, and D. Witnesses are brought forward on the bill as is. Then the bill gets to being nearly done at the committee stage. The witnesses are sent home. Then the government itself amends its own bill, because it is often poorly done, and virtually brings the bill back to pretty near what the original law was.

I see that as almost a revictimization of victims. The government lets on that it is doing A, B, C, and D but really does not get it done through the bill, because at the end of the day, it amends the bill to being nearly the way it was.

I wonder if my colleague has anything to say about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an issue with the government on virtually all the legislation related to crime. The government likes to come across as if it is really tough on crime. That is the message it is trying to communicate.

If we read through some of the legislation, we will find that there is not really that much to a lot of it. There are some initiatives the government has taken, but it seems to me that it is more about political spin than it is about improving the law itself. That is what can get very frustrating. As my colleague points out, amendments to legislation can be brought forward, and the government does not act on them. The government has its own agenda, and that is something it wants to push through. It does not necessarily respond to amendments.

That is what we see with the vast majority of the legislation the government actually brings in. If it were to open its attitude toward receiving amendments, I think that on the whole we would have much better legislation passing through the House.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North indicated an indirect expression of concern that there may be more form than substance and that we may be just scratching the surface and not going into real depth on victims' legislation.

I wonder if I could have some clarification from the member about his position. Is the Liberal Party supporting the bill despite these concerns?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I indicated at the outset was that we in the Liberal Party look at this as a continuation, in good part, of actions that were taken back in 2003 when there was a great deal of effort put into revising the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles for Justice for Victims of Crime. That was there for all legislatures to go over. I went over a number of points, I believe it was 10 points at the time. As opposed to going through all of those points, suffice it to say that we will in fact be supporting the legislation.

Another comment I made was that we feel that there could have been a few amendments to the legislation that would have enhanced victims' rights or the bill. We will have to wait for another more opportune time when the government is maybe more open to receiving amendments. Suffice it to say that we are prepared to vote in favour of the legislation, because for the most part, it is quite supportive.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have, in particular, and my speech will address it, is that there appears to be no attached funding envelope for the victims bill of rights, Bill C-32. That could be the way the bill has been drafted, to not actually involve the need for material resources, but I rather suspect that, in order to adequately implement a bill of this sort, extra money would be needed to make it effective.

I would like to ask my colleague whether or not he sees the lack of a bringing together, a convergence, of funding in the bill as a problem and whether or not that should be taken into account in any way at committee stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I said I look forward in anticipation of future budgets, because it is more than just the legislation. It is important that we recognize resources, and by resources I am referring to finances, obviously, among other things. Finances is a very important aspect of resources for supporting this particular bill.

It is a concern we have consistently expressed in terms of how the government likes to come up with legislative ideas and thoughts and bring them in with a lot of fanfare, press releases, and photo ops and go for those three-inch headlines. It is the follow-through we are concerned about.

When the member makes reference to the financial shortcomings or resource shortcomings of this legislation, we share the concern. I am not too sure if this could have been amended in the legislation. I am not the critic for the legislation. I would have to look to the Liberal Party critic and follow his lead.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not to abuse the floor, but I have a feeling that in my own speech, I might not actually get to this point.

I just wonder if my colleague would care to comment on one of the conclusions that comes from chapter 9, which was written by Dr. Annette Bailey of Ryerson University, in a book called Gun Violence, Disability and Recovery.

She talks about one kind of service that is needed that really does not exist provincially, and certainly not nationally, which she refers to as “trauma-informed grief counselling”:

Several service providers interviewed feel there are insufficient grief support services for survivors of violent crime in general. Those that do exist often do not address the specific needs of gun violence survivors, whose trauma may be compounded by stigma, guilt, and self-blame.... Making trauma-informed counselling available to survivors, however, “requires a shift at the national level in recognising grief as a mental health issue”.

I would like to ask whether my hon. colleague would agree with me that, apart from the preventative initiatives he spoke about correctly, we are probably missing serious downstream questions about the impact on victims, including family members, and that recognizing grief as a mental health issue could take us some way to a more holistic, fuller view of the impact of crime on victims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had an unfortunate and sad experience. I was with a mother when it was first announced that her son had been brutally murdered. The police officer walked in and said, “We have found your son's body, and he has been murdered.” The profound impact that had on this individual was truly amazing. One cannot help but feel a great deal of sympathy for her because of what she had to go through in the years that followed. There is no doubt that we can do a lot more on the whole front of trauma for victims of crime.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill. I should note that I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I do want to start on what I recognize is a negative note. Most of what is in the bill is indeed positive. However, the bill is extremely limited in its understanding, both of the needs of victims, and the responsibilities of society through government to help victims. If we are all going to be supporting it going to committee and possibly voting for it at third reading, I think we have to make sure that the hype does not outdistance the reality. Much work will need to be done on deeper issues around victimhood than the bill addresses.

I may not go as far as leading lawyer Clayton Ruby has gone in calling this “shallow symbolism”. However, I would agree with the first victims ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, when he commented, on April 3, to CBC, that the government has over-promised and under-delivered in this bill. Not to get into the crazy game of grading bills, but I guess I will. He said that he would give this a C-plus or a D-minus, without even looking at what the government had been promising in advance. The hype in advance means that he would probably give it an even worse grade.

By way of introduction, I would also note that a victim's mother, who spoke on Global News, said something that I think is extremely eloquent. She said, “Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth”.

That is not to say that is entirely true about the bill, but that is generally the situation when it comes to how victims, including the family members of immediate victims, friends, and even the community, the neighbours of victims, are treated in our society. This does not have to be the case. There are societies where a much more coordinated, holistic, and robust response to the pain, the grief, and the trauma caused by crime is dealt with more effectively than in Canada.

One of the reasons that it is not dealt with that effectively here has to do with one of the virtues of our country, which is federalism. That means that by and large this has been left as a kind of social service in the philosophy of the federal government. The federal government gets involved in sporadic funding for post-crime victim support, but it is just that; it is funding, and it is not an attempt to truly create a national framework.

I first became aware of a limitation in the government's approach to victims of crime when early after being elected, I was on the justice committee, considering a bill that would increase offender surcharges. A number of members of the committee clearly stated that between surcharges—that is, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime pay—and provincial programs, the federal government's responsibility for assistance, which includes the need for programs and funding, basically ends.

I felt then and I feel now that this is a highly inadequate view. It does not understand our jurisdiction, federally, over crime and criminal law. It basically leaves victims after the court process, in terms of jurisdiction to create programs, and completely buries that responsibility, as I said before, within ad hoc spending power involvement.

I do not want to say there is nothing in the bill. There is an addition to this philosophy of perpetrators paying, in sections 16 and 17 of Bill C-32. These are new restitution provisions that bring our criminal law closer to some civil law models, where every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender. If that order is made by the judge, the order is entered as a civil court judgment that can be enforced against the offender. This is a welcomed provision.

However, everyone will recognize that it has limits. It would require offenders to be capable of paying. It would be the same problem that we have with surcharges, in that it would be a very inadequate way to ensure we are focusing on the victim and that there is compensation.

The restitution feature would only add another element to that, which would be far outdistanced by situations in which offenders and perpetrators who are convicted would not have the resources. Therefore, the idea of a restitution order would have no meaningful impact on the kinds of compensation that could help victims to deal with trauma and grief and pick up the pieces after their own victimization following a crime, or that of a loved one.

At around that time, I began to interact with a very inspiring woman in my constituency. Joan Howard lost a son over ten years ago, in 2003, to gun violence. He was shot dead with a handgun in the hallway of a building in Toronto-Danforth.

Kempton Howard, after whom a park is named in our riding, was a role model to countless teens, through his volunteer work in Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre's Boys and Girls Club. He was a moderator of a junior leadership program, an after-school children's program leader, a summer day camp counsellor, and a youth basketball coach. He was also a recipient of the Youth Ontario Volunteer Services Award.

Joan spent many years dealing with the trauma and the long-lasting grief, and then she began to ask herself what she could do. She has done many things. She has become part of a peer support system, which I will talk about briefly, if I have time.

More recently, we have joined together for a petition campaign that has been tabled on many occasions in the House. That petition asks the House of Commons to better understand that victims of crime, especially crimes of violence and crimes involving guns, include the loved ones of the direct victims. As a consequence, we need to create a meaningful countrywide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as for victims of crime who survive the crimes against them, and ensure adequate funding for such a system.

Reverend Sky Starr runs an amazing program called Out of Bounds, with the thematic subtitle of “grief support from the inside out”, which involves the mutual peer support model. Between Joan and Reverend Starr, I have become inspired, or at least better informed, about the need to take trauma and ongoing grief seriously, as something that destroys lives and whole communities.

To that end, we had a teach-in here on the Hill, on December 10, 2013, which happened to be international Human Rights Day. It was a seminar on the Hill, to which a number of MPs from all parties came. Actually, the Conservative Party did not come, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice did send a staff member. The staff member seemed to have been extremely moved by what he heard and learned. We hoped that this session would go back to the parliamentary secretary and then to the Minister of Justice to factor into the coming victims bill of rights. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the case.

That said, I do not think that anything in the victims bill of rights precludes us from moving forward in the future on a better understanding of the basic points that Reverend Starr made during that seminar. She outlined three crucial needs. First, there is a need for sustainable funding for grassroots organizations and resources to help organizations find funding opportunities to actually help victims. Second, trauma-specific policies are needed to deal with the lack of trauma support that currently exists in communities. Third, the recognition of grief as a mental health issue has to be first and foremost a starting point. The grief and trauma that flows from gun violence, in many ways, is very particular and very long-lasting.

I will end my comments by paying tribute to another member of my community, Jonathan Khan, who was shot dead on the Danforth with a gun. I attended his funeral in a synagogue in North Toronto only a few months ago, and again had occasion to realize how easily lives are destroyed, not simply the lives of those killed, but those who survive them.

The only thing that propels people forward are support networks. We, as a society, need to help create those support networks and not rely only on families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. Because of his professional background, he is able to provide far greater insight into certain provisions included in this bill.

I would like to hear his thoughts about some of those provisions in the bill. At some point in time, will there not be a certain amount of overlap or some issues concerning the decision-making process within the legal system? Does he think that the government is meddling in decisions that should be made by judges, lawyers, and crown attorneys?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be completely honest, that is not something I have looked at in this bill yet. However, I can see where the member is coming from.

After having spoken with the justice critic, I think it is very important that the committee hear from witnesses who can tell us a bit more about that issue. I am sorry, but that is the best I can do. However, it is a very important question.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, this bill is a step in the right direction. At the same time, there are many flaws in the bill and many resources missing. What is more, the government talks about giving victims more rights, but Bill C-32 establishes no legal obligation for those working in the criminal justice system to implement these rights.

I would like my colleague to comment on an excerpt from a quote by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes:

Enhancing victims rights in criminal proceedings is certainly necessary, 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.

What is the point of having this bill if at the end of the day the rights cannot be implemented and there are no resources to help the victims?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question more or less speaks to the theme of my speech, which is that the bill does not put the federal government on the hook for any costs related to victim support and that there is no real vision for support in this bill, in the Canadian victims bill of rights. Victims need support after the process itself.

I think this was done deliberately. The government made this choice. I do not understand why, exactly, with all the fanfare around the Canadian victims bill of rights.

I do not think that this is something that can be fixed in committee. This is something that will have to come from the party, the government, and I hope it will come within a year. There is truly a gap in the vision for victims in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to say a few words about the repercussions this bill will have on the process. The courts are currently quite backlogged and trials take a long time. Does my colleague think that this bill will slow down the legal process even more?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Yes, I imagine that this bill will make the process longer and complicate procedures, which will affect victims. I do not know exactly how the federal government can fix that without giving the provinces more resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I soberly rise this afternoon to debate Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. This bill is quite large and just the summary takes up several pages. Thus, I will not be able to discuss the entire bill at length.

As legislators in the House, we are often called on to strike a balance. When we draft laws, we are always looking for balance, sometimes between complicated things that at first glance seem contradictory, and we have to be able to harmonize them.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have solid democratic institutions and law and order. There is a separation between the legislative branch, whose power we exercise in the House of Commons, and the judicial branch. It is very important to remember that when we draft and debate bills.

All members, no matter their politics, have the same objective: to improve this country, serve Canadians and defend the interests of all Canadians, not just those of specific groups. Sometimes when we launch our political career, we have different and deep personal convictions or motivations. However, we must not let these personal convictions get the upper hand of certain fundamental principles that govern our country.

With respect to the victims bill of rights, the NDP is listening to the victims and to their demands. We want their voices to be heard because they often suffer in silence and receive no support. They go through very trying times.

With this bill, the government seems to want to give victims a voice. However, will the bill give them the means to make this happen?

According to the analyses we have looked at, there is no evidence that this bill would provide the means to implement this bill of rights.

The summary states the following:

(h) the right to have the courts consider making, in all cases, a restitution order against the offender; and

(i) the right to have a restitution order entered as a civil court judgment that is enforceable against the offender if the amount owing under the restitution order is not paid.

I cannot discuss this in detail, but we have to ask ourselves whether these measures can really be implemented. What the government is trying to do here is make sure that individuals accused of crimes compensate the victims. That can be problematic because sometimes those accused of a crime do not have the means to compensate the victim at all.

The government actually had a commission in place that could compensate victims of violent crimes. I looked into this recently, and some provinces have created commissions to ensure that victims of violent crimes are compensated, but that is not the case across Canada. Maybe the government could find a way to include in the victims bill of rights a mechanism to help victims through a commission that could compensate them. I encourage the government to do that.

It will also be worth our while to carefully examine other issues in committee, because some of them may surface later on. Therefore, it will be critical to conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee.

For example, as I mentioned, what steps will be taken regarding damages incurred by victims? Also, as I pointed out during the debates, the bill presents the theory, the plan, the intentions. However, how will this be implemented in our justice system? As we know, there are long delays right now. There are lineups, so to say. Will this bill make the process more cumbersome or not? I am not saying the government's intentions regarding the victims bill of rights are not good. However, we must determine whether this will bog down the process.

I also noticed that victims of domestic violence would be required to testify. I am not sure if I understood correctly, but we should really take a close look at this provision. We must understand that domestic violence is a very particular issue, and we really need to be careful.

This huge bill means well. It is a matter of knowing whether the government is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement it and to ensure victims are truly protected.

I also hope that at committee stage the government will listen to those who will propose necessary amendments to this legislation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was most interesting, as always.

I was very pleased that she talked about the resources that victims need but cannot always get, such as services, help or support. Conservative bills often talk about helping people and tackling crime and abuse, but we never see any resources to back up this laudable goal and nice rhetoric.

With regard to victims and crimes, a number of studies and case histories in other countries show that the one thing that deters criminals from committing a crime is the likelihood that they will get caught.

Fighting crime is not merely about imposing minimum sentences. It is primarily to ensure we have the police and border resources, for example, to ensure that those who commit offences are caught and face the consequences of their actions.

It always comes down to resources, and I thank my colleague for pointing out the need for resources if we really want to help victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for also reminding us of this aspect of the issue.

Some of the comments made after this bill was introduced indicate that the federal government is backing away from compensation for victims of crime. It is doing so by trying to make offenders, those who commit the crime, pay.

However, how can that happen when some people accused of violent crimes live in extreme poverty? They will not be able to compensate the victims. It will be impossible. Nor will they be able to pay if they are in prison.

If the government really wants to help victims, it should provide more funding for programs that already exist and partner with the provinces that have victim compensation programs. This was one comment in an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail. It should also establish these programs across Canada and properly fund them.

The federal government, which says it stands up for victims, should be the first to rise and applaud this recommendation.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a correctional officer and I saw many victims and met many people who victimized others. I am not sure that people want to constantly revisit and relive this situation. However, they do need a lot of support.

Does my hon. colleague have any further comments about the victim assistance program?