Debates of Feb. 20th, 2015

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gatineau for her speech.

It is quite rare—there is no denying it—that we see a bill like BIll C-32 that allows the official opposition to finally support the government so we can work together to the same end.

Unfortunately, we must again condemn the time allocation imposed on this bill and the fact that despite our efforts and the very reasonable amendments proposed at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, they were all refused.

Because she was able to hear from so many witnesses, I wonder if my colleague, the justice critic, could tell me if she heard anything or got any impressions from witnesses or other stakeholders in the area of justice and victims rights regarding the fact that the government was completely closed to any suggestions for improving this worthwhile and commendable bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I realize that they are often the same groups. We are really getting to know one another. Justice committee meetings are practically convivial now. There is a common thread running through the Conservatives' bills, and as a result, they often invite the same witnesses to come and explain things to us. That is why we are really getting to know them.

I am also coming to the realization, and this was true particularly during our study of the victims bill of rights, that the victims' associations the Conservatives like to trot out for photo ops in support of their bills have their eyes and ears wide open.

I am saying that, but members of those associations are no fools. They know that the government likes to use them, but the cause is greater than their personal feelings. They have big hearts. They have been through absolutely horrible situations, so they will always step up when they see an opportunity to advance their cause even a little, but they are no fools.

I would like to take a moment to correct the member. Indeed, the Conservatives had no interest in what I would call quantitative amendments that would have made a huge difference to victims. I think that is unfortunate because they claim to stand up for victims.

They accepted just one opposition amendment, and it was one of mine. It does not make me terribly proud because they changed the amendment quite a bit. Nevertheless, I asked for this:

Two years after section 2 comes into force, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights enacted by that section.

I thought two years was reasonable. It was my way of ensuring that a House committee would truly look at how much this bill of rights accomplished. Out of respect for the victims rights associations, this would allow them to come and tell us whether there had been any major changes.

True to form, the Conservatives proposed an amendment to the amendment to push back the study to five years. Moreover, it blew my mind, but they rejected this proposal: “The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an annual report for the previous year on the operation of this Act that contains the following information”.

It would have been interesting to see some statistics. This government is not a big fan of information. We could have had statistics. I asked for “(a) the number of restitution orders made under section 16;” since this was an important part of the bill of rights to them. I get the impression that it will not get used as much as we think.

I also asked for the following because that is what the victims are calling for: “(b) the number of requests for information made under sections 7 and 8; and (c) the number of complaints filed under sections 25 and 26”.

Unfortunately, the government rejected all this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the NDP's justice critic, for her professionalism and diligence in debating the bills introduced by the Conservatives.

I also thank her for pointing out the Conservatives' misleading statements. They claim to stand up for victims, but in reality this bill is nothing but an empty shell. They will not compensate victims. They have no plan for compensating victims. They are off-loading that burden onto the provinces.

Could my colleague speak more to the fact that the Conservatives are washing their hands of this and off-loading the burden onto the provinces?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I could talk about that for 25 minutes.

The provinces will have to deal with the administration of justice, which is their responsibility. The content—meaning crime and justice—is our responsibility. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. I would say that is a big responsibility. We draft the laws, and they have to take action based on what we draft and decide. This is often done without much consultation, with all due respect to my colleagues opposite, who say that they consult when they hold one or two meetings a year with federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers. Often, this process is very superficial.

The Conservatives say that they are working on something. Their idea of consultation is limited to informing people of what will be passed. They say that they have a majority so they will not accept any amendments, that they already know where they are going and that this is how things will be. Then they explain what that means.

We are running out of time. It would have been great to have more time to debate this issue and to talk about different aspects of the bill. I did not get a chance to talk about the part that deals with the complaints of victims who are not happy with how certain things work. Once again, it is a voluntary system that is not clear at the provincial level. It could create some problems and could get bogged down.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32. It is a bill that I suspect will receive unanimous support of the House of Commons, and there should be no one surprised in regard to that. Legislators as a whole, whether at the national level or at the provincial level, truly want to do whatever is possible from a legislative perspective and outside of legislative perspectives to ensure that we can bring more justice and express more sympathy and so forth to victims of crime.

The right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution are rights that we hear a great deal about whenever we talk about victims. I would like to add some thoughts dealing with the legislation and, if time permits, to cite some concerns I have specifically with respect to Winnipeg North in regard to gang activities, which are not unique to Winnipeg North. Gang activities occur in many other municipalities and areas across the country, and there is an important role that the government needs to play in dealing with that issue.

It is worthy of note that the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-32, and that should come as no surprise. We have worked with other political parties in the past in recognizing the importance of victims and in wanting to make sure we do whatever possible in having a legislative agenda to deal with the issue.

Even though the government talks a great deal about being the great defender of victims and victims' rights, if we get down to the details, we find that the government has really not done all that well and that there is more it could have done. Because of its general attitude in bringing forward legislation, we could have been able to accomplish a whole lot more.

I say that because in 1988, had the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice actually endorsed the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. That was back in an era of Progressive Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. They demonstrated the need to be able to work in co-operation with different stakeholders, and in particular with the different levels of government.

In 2003, after a considerable amount of discussion had taken place among federal officials, provincial officials, and other stakeholders, the original statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime was changed and modified, and again I emphasize that it was through working with other jurisdictions that a great deal was accomplished. Ultimately it was to promote fair treatment of victims and to have that reflected in federal, provincial, and territorial laws, policies, and procedures. That was done because the different entities were working together.

I suspect that a greater sense of agreement and co-operation among the different levels helped put the necessary funding and resources in place to ensure that it was possible not only to talk about changes but to act on those changes. I will refer later in my comments to the resources.

A reference in the preamble to the 2014 victims bill of rights notes that some very basic principles were identified back in 2003. They were intended to be promoted so that there would be fair treatment for victims. As I said, those would then be reflected through laws, policies, and procedures.

I would like to list all eight of them: first, victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect; second, the privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible; third, all reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims; fourth, 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; fifth, information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim's role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes; sixth, victims should be given information, in accordance with the prevailing laws, 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; seventh, information should be provided to the victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation; and eighth, the views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with the prevailing law, policies and procedures.

I was here when the minister introduced the legislation. He indicated at that point what a wonderful hallmark it would be to pass Bill C-32. There is no doubt that Bill C-32 is a step forward, as we acknowledge, and that is why we support the legislation. However, it does not deserve the type of applause the Minister of Justice has envisioned for it. There are many shortcomings in the legislation.

Since the Conservatives formed government in 2006, not much legislation has materialized putting victims first, despite what we hear on a weekly basis in the House of Commons. In other words, there is vast room for improvement. One might say that as a member of the Liberal Party, it is easy for me to make that statement, but let me refer to some recommendations in the recent report by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime on the victims bill of rights legislation based on discussions with stakeholders at that office's April 13 forum.

To quote federal ombudsman Sue O'Sullivan from May 2014, she stated in reference to the bill:

...the Bill fails to fully address the breadth and depth of victims’ needs and concerns. As the Bill moves through the Parliamentary process, I will be pushing for further change to strengthen the Bill and I encourage all Canadians to do the same.

Of the nearly 30 recommendations the ombudsman made to the Government of Canada for inclusion in its bill, only 4 have been fully addressed, and another 10 have only been partly addressed, which really suggests that there is a great deal of room for improvement.

I looked at the report by that office and it is fairly extensive. If members look at the nine recommendations made for the victims bill of rights, each of them has specifics. Let me provide a couple of examples.

The first recommendation talks about the victims bill of rights being enforceable and usable. It states:

Critical to have the rights of victims enshrined in law and enforceable, accessible for victims.

The concept of justice expanded from an exclusive focus on convicting individuals of crimes to include a full response to the needs of victims; justice is seen to be done when the offender is held accountable and the victim restored to the maximum extent possible.

Should include accessible knowledge through data collection and dissemination (with privacy considerations) to enable the community to monitor and evaluate equality, progress and effectiveness.

In this report, there are nine recommendations. I just made reference to one of them, which consists of a series of suggestions. Each recommendation, in fact, has a series of suggestions. There is a lot in here, including about voice and standing; the right to information, financial protection and support, psychological support and resources; limiting opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or to re-offend; equitable, respectful, and individualized treatment; the inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; and integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country. These are all points in which there are actionable points that follow each one of the eight recommendations that I just listed. The point is that there is so much more that we could have done to improve the legislation.

The Liberal Party critic, the member for Charlottetown, has done a phenomenal job in making sure that our party's perspective is espoused and talked about. He has represented us exceptionally well at the committee stage and, in fact, made numerous attempts to make changes or bring forward amendments to the legislation.

I would like to quote some of the thoughts expressed by the member for Charlottetown with regard to one specific presentation that he heard in committee. This particular individual was Maureen Basnicki, a Canadian whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks. At committee, she explained that she had experienced difficulty in accessing victims services because her husband was murdered by a terrorist outside of the country. She urged us to extend any lawfully available domestic rights to Canadian victims of crime that occur outside of Canada.

I would like to share some her testimony with the chamber. She stated:

...perpetrators of crimes are still demanding their rights as Canadian citizens when they've been successfully prosecuted for crimes outside the country, and I want to bring balance to this. This is not a new step. It's new for Canadians, perhaps, but other countries do this, many other countries. Most other countries do.

After listening to Ms. Basnicki, the member for Charlottetown, on behalf of the Liberal Party, introduced an amendment to capture her unfairly overlooked constituency, even though reference was made to it in the report. The Liberal critic suggested granting domestically available victims benefits to Canadians who have experienced serious personal injury crimes outside of the country or whose family members have been murdered outside the country.

What do members think happened at committee? A wonderful, valuable amendment, something that was referenced in other forms by different stakeholders, was voted down by the Conservatives for apparently no good reason, other than that the Liberal Party had brought forward the amendment, perhaps.

The member for Charlottetown introduced other amendments. Some of those amendments were based on the Canadian Bar Association's recommendations on Bill C-32.

One of the interesting ones that received a great deal of discussion was with regard to plea deals and what happens when there is an admission of guilt compared to deals where there are attempts to come up with a plea bargain. There was some clarity introduced in making sure that the system would be more efficient and fairer to victims. Again, the government rejected them.

There were many other amendments brought forward, including allowing victims of crime in Canada to file victim impact statements and to make restitution claims without being present in Canada, so as to avoid the expense of having to return here. Another was returning court discretion on the timing of restitution payments, since restitution orders may interfere with the victims' enforcement of civil orders. There was also one preserving court discretion to disallow a community impact statement if someone unjustifiably purported to speak on behalf of a community. There were more amendments as well.

However, the government is so partisan at committee that even if there is a legitimate amendment that would improve the legislation, it has a standard default position in response. If it is not a Conservative amendment, the government will not vote in favour it. As a result, we are failing to recognize important amendments that would make the legislation that much better.

This is where I believe the government needs to be held to task. Yes, it is passing legislation. As I said, we will support this legislation, but we must indicate to Canadians' that the government consistently fails to recognize worthy amendments that would improve legislation. As a result, it is Canadians who are paying the price because of the Conservatives' attitude when it comes to passing legislation in the House of Commons and their complete disregard of amendments that would improve legislation.

At committee, it was interesting. This is something else that the member for Charlottetown wanted to make reference to. The Grand Chief asked us to alter Bill C-32 to “better reflect the unique circumstances and needs of first nations persons who are victims of crime”. In short, he asked us to extend the principle of the Supreme Court's Gladue decision, which extends special historic consideration to aboriginal offenders' and victims' side of the question. The Grand Chief recommended, and we did introduce, amendments to address that issue, at least in part. Again, the Conservatives turned them down.

There were concerns regarding restorative justice, and if time permits, I will take the opportunity to deal with that toward the end of my comments.

The bottom line is that the government has been afforded the opportunity—are you telling me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Daryl Kramp), Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have five seconds.

[Lamoureux]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, someone will ask me a question. I was hoping to be able to go on the record with some thoughts on gang activity, but I am thankful for the opportunity to have been able to say at least a few words on the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech. I especially appreciated his pointing out that the Conservative government does not give any consideration to the work done in committee, especially since getting its majority.

The work done by committees, which are part of our parliamentary and democratic institutions, is being rather perverted by the government. As the member clearly explained, based on his extensive experience, committees help improve bills by amending them.

As my colleague, the justice critic, mentioned, the NDP moved several amendments to this bill in order to add real value.

I would like to hear more from the member about committee work. Whether with this bill or the many others that have amended the Criminal Code, not recognizing the work of committees will have negative consequences for Canada's future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had more of a co-operative attitude going into the committee, we could improve the quality of the legislation. All of us would benefit if occurred.

Let us take a look at the issue of the rights of victims. I made reference to Brian Mulroney whose government worked with the provinces to ultimately develop our first basic principles of justice for victims. Then Jean Chrétien made modifications to it, and I quoted those rights.

I did not have time to make reference to former prime minister Paul Martin or the member for Mount Royal, who took initiative and enhanced the rights of victims.

Whether it was any level of those changes that were brought in, there was a high sense of co-operation with the different levels of government. There was a great deal more effort in taking into consideration what opposition members had to say.

Under other administrations, amendments that were brought forward to committee, whether they were Liberal, or New Democrat or Progressive Conservative amendments, years back, they were not only allowed to be debated, but a good number of them were passed. Why? Because it was in the best interest of the legislation being debated.

The current majority government has forgotten that principle. It has that natural default position of when an amendment is not Conservative, it resists and votes against it. That is to the detriment of good legislation.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to comment on the question posed by my colleague from LaSalle—Émard.

In previous parliaments, it was normal for the government, even one with a majority, to accept a number of amendments proposed in committee. Up to two-thirds of the amendments put forward in committee were accepted by previous governments.

However, in the 41st Parliament, regretfully, none of the amendments moved by opposition parties have been accepted. That is very unfortunate.

If my colleague has any concluding remarks related to gangs or any other concluding remarks, I would like to hear them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there was so much that I wanted to say on this legislation, but there is a personal side to this for me in the sense of the rights of victims.

There is so much more a government can do to prevent victims in the first place. On gang activity, far too many young people are engaged in those activities. If the government were to invest more in activities in which young people could get engaged in to prevent them from getting involved in gangs, we could prevent people from becoming victims in the future.

I would like to see the government have a more caring attitude in providing the alternative programming or supporting and working with the different levels of government to create and generate the activities that would help our young people and keep them out of gangs.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that on such an important issue that transcends all political spectrum that we would get caught up in a bashing kind of rhetoric. I understand the hon. member opposite has certain passions about doing that. The reality is that it takes away from the integrity of what we are endeavouring to do, and also the importance of the bill in this context.

I have been on this page for a good long time through various governments. I can remember the days of the Liberal governments when, as a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, we pleaded for adjustments to legislation to better deal with things like victims issues, and for the most part, we were discounted, so this is not a political issue. We need to get our collective act together and start thinking about why we are here and what we are here to do.

Does the hon. member have any recollection of the days of Paul Martin, then prime minister, when the police pleaded for these kinds of issues and we were totally discounted?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, let me address the point the member raised at the beginning. My choice would be to have a government go to the committee stage of a bill with an open mind and be receptive to amendments proposed by opposition members.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot go to committee and reject everything opposition members have to say in bringing forward amendments and voting against all of them, as this majority government consistently has, then when the bill comes forward for third reading, say that the member is too political.

We support the legislation because we believe it is a step in the right direction, but it could have been better legislation had the government been more receptive to listening and working in a co-operative more apolitical fashion at committee stage.

In regard to the listening, I can assure the member that whether it is meeting with premiers, mayors and other organizations and stakeholders, I do not know of another prime minister outside of Paul Martin who was outreaching, working and trying to build consensus.

In his very short period of time, look at what he was able to accomplish, whether it was the Kelowna accord or many other deals with our first nations, or child care. There was a litany of things in a very short time span such as the green agreement, the health care accord. We have not seen this type of consultation. It does not necessarily mean everyone gets everything, but at least the genuine attempt for outreach and consultation was done exceptionally well. I am very proud of the former prime ministers Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien on these issues.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I cannot help but respond to the speech given by the Associate Minister of National Defence. He is claiming that the Conservatives suggested those ideas when Paul Martin's government was in office. However, we then had eight years of inaction before we finally started this debate, which, unfortunately, has been subject to time allocation. That is truly shameful.

My colleague was quite right in pointing out the fact that our constructive proposals are all too easily rejected. I would like him to comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I made reference in my comments to Sue O'Sullivan, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. That captures a number of thoughts to which the member makes reference.

A lot more can be done. However, it is not fair for the Conservatives to trumpet all the time that they are the great defenders of victims rights, because their actions speak differently.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

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

There were a lot of consultations, including in my own riding of Edmonton Centre. As we all know, the bill does propose significant changes to Canadian criminal law.

It is thanks to some great work of the tireless staff in the Department of Justice, people like Pam Arnott, working closely with the Minister of Justice, who have brought the bill to the House. Most important, the bill would create the Canadian victims bill of rights to enshrine enforceable rights of victims of crime in federal law for the first time.

These rights fall into four main areas.

The right to information would give victims the right to general information about the criminal justice system, available victim services and programs, as well as specific information about the progress of the case, including information related to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them.

The right to protection would give victims the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, have reasonable and necessary measures to protect them from intimidation and retaliation, and to request their identity to be protected from public disclosure.

The right to participation would give victims the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by criminal justice professionals and have them considered at various stages in the criminal justice process, and to present a victim impact statement.

The right to restitution would give victims the right to have the court consider making a restitution order for all offences for which there are easy to calculate financial losses.

In addition, the bill would amend other legislation, such as the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide greater specificity to those rights.

Bill C-32 is the most recent example of our government's commitment to improving the experiences of victims of crime. Because of the transformative nature of these reforms and the significant impact they will have on the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system, the Canadian victims bill of rights is a milestone in the quest for justice for victims of crime.

This government has long been aware of the need to do more for victims of crime. Indeed, it has been one of our top priorities. Since 2006, we have designated more than $140 million to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

We have seen the results of this investment in concrete terms, such as through the creation of more than 20 child advocacy centres across Canada that help children and their families navigate the justice system.

We have also undertaken a robust legislative agenda that has included many reforms benefiting victims of crime. These have included Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which reformed the victims surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code; Bill C-14, Not criminally Responsible Reform Act, which addressed the needs of victims accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder; and, most recent, Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, to address cyberbullying.

While we are proud of everything we have done for victims of crime, the victims bill of rights is truly a significant achievement. Ensuring the rights of victims at the federal level recognizes the difficulty that victims can experience as they participate in the criminal justice and corrections systems. It would provide concrete means to ensure that the needs of victims would be respected.

The rights enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights and the amendments to the other acts that are included in Bill C-32 would apply to all victims of crime.

However, some of the proposed provisions would have special significance for vulnerable victims, such as victims of sexual offences, and that is where I would like to focus my attention today.

Bill C-32 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code scheme that governs the production of third party records. To be clear, this scheme applies to documents of all kinds for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and which are being sought as evidence in criminal trials involving sexual offences. The proposed amendments are consistent with the rights of victims to privacy and security, which would be enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Four amendments are proposed to the third party records regime.

First, the amendments would ensure that all historical sexual offences would be included within the procedures governing the release of third party records by replacing the current list of historical sexual offences with a general description to ensure that all victims of sexual offences would be protected by this scheme.

Second, the period of time for which an accused must serve their application for the production of third party records would be doubled from 7 to 14 days.

Third, the court would be required to inform the complainant or witness of their right to be represented by independent legal counsel during the in camera process.

Finally, a court would be required to consider the right to personal security of a complainant or witness when determining whether to produce a record for inspection by the court or whether to produce the record to the accused. This would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence in this area.

Bill C-32 also includes a number of amendments that specifically address the needs of victims of sexual offences when they testify as witnesses in criminal proceedings. The benefits of testimonial aids, such as support persons, use of a screen that spares the witness from seeing the accused, or testimony outside the courtroom by closed-circuit television, are well documented.

Bill C-32 would make testimonial aids more readily available for adult vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, by providing the courts with greater discretion to determine whether to order their use. Currently such testimonial aids may be ordered for adults when a court determines that they are necessary for the witness to provide a full and candid account. Amendments proposed in Bill C-32 would allow a court to make such orders for adult witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, when they believe it would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account. The language is important here.

Additionally, a court would be required to consider the security and protection of the witness, and society's interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and witness protection in the criminal justice system, when deciding whether to order a testimonial aid.

The Criminal Code provision governing the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of a witness when the accused is self-represented would also be amended to benefit victims of sexual offences. The amendment would presumptively prohibit a self-represented accused from personally cross-examining a victim of sexual assault, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires it. This presumptive approach is currently the case with victims of sexual harassment, and recognizes that victims of certain crimes are more vulnerable while they participate in the criminal justice process.

A victim's right to privacy and protection under the Canadian victims bill of rights would also be supported by amendments to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code, which governs publication bans for adults. Currently a judge may order a publication ban for an adult victim or witness, if the order is deemed necessary for the proper administration of justice. Bill C-32 would allow a court to order a publication ban for adult victims and witnesses when it is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. Once again, the language is important.

When determining whether to order a publication ban, the court will consider factors, including whether the witness can suffer harm, rather than significant harm, as is currently required, if their identity were disclosed. These amendments would be particularly beneficial to victims of sexual offences, who are often more vulnerable due to the nature of the offence.

This bill has been thoroughly examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The standing committee held nine days of meetings and heard evidence on many critical aspects of the bill. It has also been the subject of comprehensive debate in the House of Commons. In fact, this bill has enjoyed the support of all parties, at all critical stages of parliamentary consideration. There has never been any question in anyone's mind on both sides of the House about the need to recognize victims of crime and the positive and long-reaching impacts that this bill will have on their experiences in the criminal justice system.

The time has come for this House to conclude our study and debate of this bill. I hope that all parties will work with us as we ensure that this landmark piece of legislation is passed as swiftly as possible. For too long, victims have voiced the concern that their perspectives have not been heard. This government has made a commitment to improve this situation, and has in fact made significant progress in improving rights and services to victims through many legislative and program initiatives.

Victims have waited a long time for this bill. Let us not make them wait any longer.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we said that we would support the bill and we will definitely do so at this stage because the bill is still a good first step.

However, I would like to share one of our concerns. What about the families of victims who have died? Bill C-32 does not contain any provisions on helping families of victims to heal. Sometimes life is never really the same after such an incident occurs. Some people are never able to return to work. Some develop mental health problems and have difficulty reintegrating into society.

There is nothing in Bill C-32 in this regard. Even before this bill was introduced, cuts had been made to key programs for victims, particularly in the area of rehabilitation and mental health.

Why is there nothing in Bill C-32 about helping the victims' families and loved ones heal and readjust to life and society?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a good one.

Bill C-32 addresses a number of aspects of this whole picture of victims' rights and so on, but it addresses the judicial process, and that is what it is intended to do. It does not, and was never intended to, address some of the things that would fall out of that because this is not endless.

However, there are a number of things that would fall out of it. There are various mental health programs and services in the provinces. Most of them are delivered provincially, as that is where those authorities reside.

It is a legitimate question. It is a matter that should be addressed, but I do not think that it is part of Bill C-32.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some reservations.

Yes, we will support this bill because it is important to victims. However, if the Conservatives think it is that important, then why did they wait eight years after taking power to make it happen? Why did they implement a system to process victims' complaints without allocating the resources needed to make it work?

Because there will not be any resources, victims will not be able to use the complaints system. It is totally ineffective. The government must give victims the means to exercise their rights if it really wants them to be heard.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is a reasonable question. We all have mixed feelings in this place about just about everything that goes on here.

The question was why we waited so long. All governments have priorities, but no matter what we bring forward and when, somebody is going to ask why we did not bring it forward before. That is also a fair question. Every government is going to attack its agenda. Things will have a higher priority because of certain circumstances that would necessarily put things farther down the list. Those circumstances change. This was deemed to be an appropriate time, with an opportunity to bring this forward.

With regard to resources, the resources are there. They will continue to be there, and they will continue to be improved as this process rolls out and matures and more people begin to take advantage of the four basic areas of rights that will be exercised. I itemized them in a bit of detail. The resources are there. They will be there, and they will continue to be improved as we go along.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague for his speech and his answers.

Can he tell me what the Conservative government is doing to prevent crime? Can he name any programs to prevent violence against women and to prevent street gangs?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is a good question. The member named one of the organizations. I am familiar with a number of them in my own community, and they are across the country. They are things like community programs, sports programs, the YMCA, and YOUCAN. I am not sure if YOUCAN is across the country, but it is certainly very active in my city. That is getting youth off the streets, away from gangs, and giving them alternative activities. There is the youth emergency shelter system, which is another one that brings at-risk youth off the streets and into environments where they can be helped and can participate in programs that keep them away from the kinds of things that we know harm our young people.

There is much being done, and much more can always be done.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of this important bill, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights. It has been a long time coming, yet many people over decades prior have seen the need for something in the order of what we have here today.

The victims bill of rights is unlike any other legislative proposal for victims of crime in our country. It would create a stand-alone act, the Canadian victims bill of rights, or the CVBR. As my esteemed colleague just moments ago spoke so very eloquently about, it would enshrine 12 rights for victims at the federal level, for the first time in Canadian history. That is what the bill is all about.

My colleague mentioned those 12 rights being grouped into some different areas of information, protection, participation, and also restitution. All would be enforceable through the remedy scheme proposed in the bill. That is only the first part of the reforms included in Bill C-32. In order to give life to the 12 rights set out in the Canadian victims bill of rights, Bill C-32 includes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Canada Evidence Act.

I am very proud to be part of this historic recognition of the important role of victims in the criminal justice process. It is on the eve of my departure from this place in the fall, along with my colleague who spoke prior and others around this place. However, there is a great sense of satisfaction that we got this together and it is being passed under our watch, so to speak.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has just finished an extensive study of this important piece of legislation. I was very pleased to hear so many members of the committee, from all parties, expressing their support for the bill. We have already heard those inferences here this morning.

This support speaks to the importance of the bill's overall goal of recognizing victims and ensuring that they occupy a more meaningful place in our criminal justice system. I was also pleased that so many witnesses took the time to testify at committee. Indeed, some 40 witnesses appeared before the standing committee to offer their views on the victims bill of rights. Most of those witnesses expressed their overall support for the bill while offering some specific constructive comments and suggestions for its improvement. Many acknowledged the importance of the bill in taking this first step toward treating victims as more than mere witnesses in the criminal justice process.

We also heard some criticisms. Some argued that the bill would cause excessive delays in an already overburdened justice system. In particular, they felt that a victims's right to information, supported by changes in the Criminal Code, would bring the criminal justice system to a halt. For example, proposed new subsection 606(4.1) would require a court that has accepted a guilty plea from an accused as a result of a plea agreement for a serious personal injury offence or murder to inquire of the prosecutor whether reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victim of the agreement. If it is not reasonable in the circumstance to do so, the crown would then be required to notify the victim as soon as possible.

That amendment would allow victims to be informed, at an early opportunity, of potential plea bargains as they are on the horizon. Victims would be entitled, under proposed new subsection 606(4.2), to ask the crown attorney to notify them of plea agreements in cases involving other indictable offences with a maximum punishment of imprisonment of five years or more.

It is clear that these amendments were carefully crafted to respond to victims' desire to be informed of plea agreements, to respect the independence of crown prosecutors, and to avoid delays in the criminal justice system that could infringe on an accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time, or which would otherwise grind the system to a halt.

It is worth noting that section 20 of the Canadian victims bill of rights addresses aspects of that concern directly, and that the act is to be applied in a manner that would not likely interfere with the proper administration of justice. That would include causing excessive delay in the prosecution of an offence. This particular amendment, which supports a victim's right to information, has been criticized by some for not going far enough. We have heard from witnesses who would like a victim's right to participation to include an ability to present their views on plea agreements before they are accepted by the court.

Some are aware that in developing this victims bill of rights, all of the views presented during the in-person and online consultations were considered. They were weighed, and it is very much a balancing act. In this bill, I think we have it right.

Victims have repeatedly noted the importance of being informed of a plea agreement as soon as practical. The committee heard testimony from witnesses who spoke of the positive effects of informing victims of plea agreements. It can make them feel more included in the criminal justice process and more likely to understand the nature of the plea agreement.

The issue of possible delays in the criminal justice system resulting from informing victims of plea agreements was raised at committee. In particular, the testimony provided by Mr. Gilhooly, who shared his experiences as a victim in the criminal justice system, summed it up perfectly. When asked if he thought the new duty to inform victims of a plea bargain would somehow delay the court process, he replied, “it would have taken 15 minutes to have kept me apprised”, when referring to the plea agreement reached for hockey coach Graham James.

I agree with Mr. Gilhooly's remarks. Bill C-32 has struck the right balance between informing victims while avoiding delays in the criminal justice system.

Another Criminal Code amendment that has received a great deal of attention is proposed in the new section 486.31, which would codify the common law practice of enabling a witness to testify without revealing his or her true identity, typically through the use of a pseudonym. This provision has been criticized as being contrary to principles of fundamental justice and unconstitutional. However, I disagree, as would many around this place, obviously.

The proposed scheme would be discretionary and would require a judge to determine that such an order was in the interest of the proper administration of justice, a test that is well established in our current criminal law. The judge would consider a number of factors when considering whether to make that order. These factors would include fair trial rights, the interests of the witness in question, and societal interests relating to the proper functioning of our criminal justice system.

This provision would recognize the critical role witnesses play in the criminal justice system. Intimidation, such as threats of harm, can be directed at witnesses to impact their evidence, or indeed, in some cases, to prevent them from testifying at all.

In the 2007 case of Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, the Supreme Court of Canada also recognized that it may be appropriate, in certain circumstances, to order a witness to testify using a pseudonym. Indeed, courts across Canada have done so. For example, in the case of R v. Moosemay, 2002, an Alberta court authorized a witness in a Wildlife Act prosecution to testify using a pseudonym to protect his safety. Similarly, in R. v. Gingras,1992, the Alberta Court of Appeal made an order to protect the safety of a prison inmate who testified and feared for his safety if his identity was made public. These cases demonstrate that orders such as these can be important in a wide variety of situations.

The standing committee heard from one witness who works with victims of human trafficking and who was threatened as a result of her testimony at trial. She too very much supports this provision to protect the security of victims.

The fair trial rights of the accused will always remain at the centre of the criminal justice system. However, a criminal trial must acknowledge and accommodate, to the extent possible, other important societal interests, such as protecting those who agree to testify as witnesses.

We know that the Canadian victims bill of rights cannot be all things to all people. It has been criticized by some for going too far in recognizing victims rights and by others for not going far enough. I, for one, believe that the bill has struck the right balance. It provides in plain language the rights victims should be able to exercise in the criminal justice and corrections systems. It also includes appropriate limitations that respect the myriad interests at play in the criminal justice system, including the rights of an accused. Most importantly, it provides the framework upon which all levels of government, federal, provincial, and territorial, can build to continue to strengthen the criminal justice system's treatment of victims.

I hope that all members will support Bill C-32 and take part in this historic change in our Canadian criminal law.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.