Debates of Feb. 4th, 2015

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member was here when the House leader rose and suggested that there would be two more days of debate. There will be an opportunity to call witnesses in the Senate, including the current victims ombudsman, Sue O'Sullivan, if she chooses.

This effort to now move the bill forward was brought about because of clear indications from members on the opposite side that they were going to continue to drag out the debate, to put up speakers and bring out further speakers and simply go over the same debate over and over. We have seen time and again when members have come in and in some cases have read the same speeches verbatim that other members of their party have already put on the record. We have seen that happen on a number of occasions with other legislation.

This particular bill, I would suggest again, for emphasis, is of such importance and of such a pressing nature that we need to have this legislation move forward, and most importantly, become law, to protect Canadian victims and enhance their rights and entrench those rights in law once and for all.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had to rise to correct some egregious misinformation coming from the other side. The fact, as the member for Gatineau pointed out at the beginning, is that this is the 86th time the current government has used time allocation and closure. There is no precedent in the history of the Canadian Parliament of a government that is so willing to use its procedural weapons to shut down debate.

The fact is that there have been three and a half hours of debate at this stage. The other fact is that the opposition parties presented dozens of amendments to try to improve the bill, and the Conservatives shot down every single one. They are not looking to improve the bill. They are not looking to do anything other than score political points.

The reality is that we have now seen under time allocation half a dozen bills rejected by the courts after the Conservatives rammed them through Parliament. It is not even good law-making when they have bills that are basically product recalls, that are rejected by the courts because the Conservatives did not get them right in the first place.

My question is very simple. Why have the Conservatives rejected every single amendment brought forward by the opposition to improve the bill? Why are the Conservatives risking having yet another bill rejected by the courts because they are not allowing appropriate parliamentary scrutiny?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is no stranger to hyperbole. The fact is that there have been 18 speakers. Almost one-quarter of the members of the NDP caucus have spoken to this bill. This is in addition to the time at committee.

As the member will know, and as the Speaker is certainly aware, the Minister of Justice does not direct how the business of committee is done in terms of amendments. We know that this legislation received unprecedented input from front-line participants in our justice system, and most importantly, from some of the biggest and best experts we have in the field; that is, victims themselves and some of their advocates, including people like Priscilla de Villiers, Sharon Rosenfeldt , Scott Newark, and others who have been working with victims almost their entire working careers.

Again, this is a piece of legislation that has had tremendous scrutiny already at this point, not to mention the fact that Department of Justice lawyers, as they do in every case, with every amendment and with every piece of legislation that comes forward, examined it for constitutionality and charter compliance. We are confident in the bill. We have had tremendous input from across the country, from every province and territory. Many experts, including parliamentarians now, have had the opportunity to look at this bill. It is time to move it forward.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to continue in the same vein as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, the minister is referring to some important points that are not entirely accurate.

One of the important points that came out of the committee study, I think, is that it is probably the provinces that will have to enforce the victims bill of rights, about 90% or 95% of the time. I think the minister would agree with that statement. However, the provinces did not seem to be very interested in the minister's proposal. Furthermore, those that were interested said they needed some time to study it properly.

Considering the government's time allocation motion, I cannot help but think that it is not actually listening at all. The minister said that some speeches are repeated, but really, we are simply trying to make important points here in the House. There are still many important points to make, but this does not have to drag things out forever. We simply want to point out some things that perhaps the minister did not think of, or certain things that might have been dismissed too easily because they were expected to just fall into place.

That is the shortcoming of a time allocation motion. This is the 86th such motion. The Conservatives are preventing in-depth debate, which does not take place to annoy people but rather to try to improve the legislation, which ought to be our main duty.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, once again, that is why we have a process to examine new bills. For parliamentarians, it is an opportunity to study and comment on them.

We are talking about a bill, as we know, that has a history. It has already seen tremendous input and has had many eyes on it.

As far as provincial and territorial input, I am sure the member for Gatineau is aware that this particular legislation has been called for by provincial attorneys general and justice ministers for some time now. We have had numerous occasions to meet face to face with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and they are excited about this bill.

Yes, of course provincial and territorial administrations of justice will have a great deal to do with the implementation of these provisions, and that is why we have been in constant contact and consultation with them throughout. We have already put in place budgetary allocations of $120 million to support victims and the victims ombudsman. We will work more closely with the provinces that already have victims ombudsmen as well, which is the case for the majority of the provinces and territories.

This bill will be a cornerstone, and I suggest that it will be transformative in the way victims are treated by our justice system, from start to finish in the process. That is why there is urgency. That is why we want this bill to now move forward and form part of Canadian law.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #321

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, International Trade; and the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Infrastructure.

The House resumed from December 11, 2014, consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak at report stage today in support of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. This bill would change how victims are to be treated by the criminal justice and correction systems in Canada. It acknowledges their suffering and recognizes that they too have rights that must be respected.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard testimony from numerous witnesses who described the importance of this legislation. Many shared their own difficult stories of victimization and expressed their appreciation for the changes that the Canadian victims bill of rights would bring to other victims who will follow.

The committee also heard from those who provide victims with much needed services. They too offered their support for the bill, explaining that the rights contained in the Canadian victims bill of rights and the accompanying amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would improve the experiences of victims.

The victims bill of rights presents a completely new approach for victims of crime in Canada. There have been many questions about how the bill would actually work and how it would be implemented. This is understandable given its transformative nature.

I would like to take the opportunity today to address three issues that were the subject of discussions at the standing committee: the definition of victim, the steps that we will take to ensure awareness of the rights created in Bill C-32, and the enforceability of those rights.

Regarding the definition of a victim in Bill C-32, the committee heard from witnesses who felt that the definition was overly broad, as well as those who felt that it was not sufficiently inclusive. Concern has been expressed about how a definition of victim in federal legislation would co-exist with the definitions of victim found in provincial and territorial victim legislation. We also heard questions about why the bill contains more than one definition of victim and what each purports to do.

As members will know, Bill C-32 includes the new Canadian victims bill of rights and proposes amendments to four federal statutes. The Canadian victims bill of rights portion of Bill C-32 includes a broad definition of victim. This definition recognizes the various kinds of harm that an individual may suffer as a result of an offence, even if the offence were not committed against him or her personally. The definition acknowledges that individuals other than the direct victim can be victims of an offence. All the rights included in the Canadian victims bill of rights can be exercised by a direct victim, as well as others who have suffered harm, such as family members.

The bill would also amend the definition of victim in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that those definitions align with the definition of victim in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

The first part of the proposed definition in the Criminal Code recognizes the same forms of harm that a victim of an offence may suffer as the Canadian victims bill of rights does. Under this part of the definition, only a person who has had an offence committed against him or her is a victim for the purposes of most Criminal Code provisions.

The second part of the Criminal Code definition includes individuals other than the direct victim for the purposes of certain Criminal Code provisions, including the victim impact statement provisions. This is consistent with established case law that recognizes secondary victims for the purpose of these provisions.

The Canadian victims bill of rights would not apply to Canadians who are victims of offences committed outside of Canada, over which Canada is not exerting extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is because the rights under the Canadian victims bill of rights all relate to the various stages of the Canadian criminal justice process, from the investigation and prosecution of an offence through to the conditional release process. For example, a victim's right to present a victim impact statement, to have a court consider making a restitution order against an offender, or to request information about an offender can only apply to offences processed through the Canadian criminal and corrections system. It is not possible for Canada to extend those rights to people or to criminal justice processes within another country's jurisdiction.

We have also heard concerns about differences between the definition of victim proposed in the Canadian victims bill of rights and those found in provincial and territorial legislation. Each province and territory has enacted its own victims of crime legislation with its own definition of victim. Some provinces and territories have multiple definitions for various purposes, such as eligibility for specific services or financial benefits programs. I note that this problem of various definitions of victim did not arise with Bill C-32 but is a result of the evolution of victims services in each jurisdiction.

It is simply not possible to have one definition of victim at the federal level that would incorporate absolutely all the different definitions of victim that exist at the provincial and territorial levels. Rather, the bill seeks to create a definition that is inclusive and that recognizes all the different forms of harm that victims may suffer as a result of an offence. These include physical or emotional harm, property damage, and economic loss. Most provincial and territorial definitions include similar elements in their definitions.

I will now turn to the issue of ensuring that victims are able to exercise their rights under the act.

The justice committee heard from witnesses who questioned how victims would be made aware of their new rights under the act. This is a very fair question. All the rights in the world will not benefit victims if they do not know about them.

A Government of Canada website will be developed making information on the Canadian victims bill of rights available to all Canadians. During last year's consultations, numerous stakeholders stressed the importance of a one-stop shop for victims to access information. The Government of Canada website will meet that need.

The committee also heard from several aboriginal groups that are concerned that aboriginal victims would not be able to exercise their rights in the same way as other victims. They noted the disproportionate impact of factors such as poverty, marginalization, and lack of safe housing for aboriginal victims and explained that they would therefore need extra support in order to fully exercise their rights in a Canadian victims bill of rights.

The government recognizes that every victim is different and has different needs. That is why budget 2014 committed to providing funding to the provinces and territories to assist with the implementation of the bill. The government recognizes that the provinces and territories will play a crucial role in the effective implementation of the bill and has been working with them through various fora—such as the meetings of the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety—to address the implementation issues

We need to continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights brings about the changes in the criminal justice and corrections systems that we have promised victims.

I will turn now to the issue of enforceability.

Some have criticized Bill C-32 as nothing more than a statement of principle because they believe the enshrined rights to be unenforceable. This is simply not true.

The victims bill of rights includes a remedial scheme to address an infringement or denial of a victim's rights under the act. This is what distinguishes Bill C-32 from many provincial or territorial victims acts that have been found to be just statements of principle. Under Bill C-32, every federal department, agency, or body involved in the criminal justice system would be required to have a complaints mechanism in place that would review complaints and make recommendations to remedy any infringement or denial of a victim's rights under the act, and they would be required to inform victims of those recommendations. If victims were not satisfied with the recommendations made by the department, agency, or body, they could then raise the issue with an oversight agency where one exists, such as the RCMP public complaints commission. If no oversight body exists for a particular department, agency, or body, a victim could seek the assistance of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, whose mandate includes reviewing concerns regarding noncompliance with legislation or established policies.

Complaints regarding a provincial or territorial agency, including police, the crown, or victim services, would be addressed in accordance with the applicable provincial or territorial legislation. In order to improve the remedies available to victims, the government will provide a limited amount of funding through the victims fund for provinces and territories to enhance or establish complaint bodies for victims of crime.

I hope members of all parties will join me in supporting the victims bill of rights to ensure that victims of crime in Canada receive the recognition and protection that they deserve.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from the member opposite. I wonder why the government decided not to entertain some of the fairly important and well-meaning amendments that were presented by our caucus at committee stage, particularly as they related, in a couple of instances, to clauses requiring the victim to make a request in order to receive certain important information.

The wording says that the victim has to request it. We tried to change it to say that the victim has the right to receive this information. I wonder why the government did not see fit to make some of those important changes, recognizing that victims do have the right to this information. If they do not receive the education on what their rights are, then they will not be able to request this important information.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee also heard from prosecutors that they would be overburdened with all the requests.

I would also point out that the Canadian victims bill of rights would enshrine a victim's right to receive, on request, general information. That is information regarding the criminal justice system and the role for victims. It would also make sure they were informed about the available victim services and programs, including the restorative justice programs. They would also have the right to make a complaint if they felt their rights had been infringed upon.

There is a lot of information-sharing. There would notification about release of the offender if the offender was being conditionally released. There are a lot of great opportunities here.

I know the NDP brought forward ideas, but we also wanted to make sure we kept a very strong bill, one that was not watered down. We wanted to make sure the bill spoke to the issues that were brought forward to the committee as well as during the consultation process when the bill was drafted by the department. Victims were telling us right across the country in our consultations that this is what they wanted to see in the bill.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague make reference to passing a bill that is not watered down. I noticed something when I read the bill. Bill C-32 states that victims may have access to a complaints mechanism, but it does not set out a specific amount for that and no compensation amount is mentioned.

In fact, I wonder how the complaints process will be effective and could satisfy the requests made by the victims.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member listened closely to my speech, because in it I talked about how that was an issue that came forward. We made sure in budget 2014 that there was funding available to the provinces to ensure that there was a mechanism for complaints at the provincial level.

We also enshrined the complaint process in federal departments. In the case that there is not a complaint process in place, we have the victims ombudsman to ensure that victims' rights are protected and are being enforced by the various government agencies at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity because I am not on the committee and did not have an opportunity to follow the bill at that stage. However, I am interested in the issue. I will explain my support for this issue when I get up to speak in a moment, but I do have a question.

There is no question that in many ways this is a framework document that frames the rights of victims across the country, but a lot of the commensurate responsibilities and costs are going to be devolved to the provinces. The provinces will have to step up as a result of a number of these provisions.

I know that at least in one case, if not in others, Attorneys General have asked for some time to be set aside for implementation. In one case it was six months, and we introduced an amendment at committee to give those provincial jurisdictions the opportunity to get ready for the impact of the bill when it comes into effect.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they have had the dialogue already through the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings. The justice committee did ask the Attorneys General from across Canada to appear, and only one province did appear. The overwhelming message from that province, as well as all justice ministers across the country, was that they have no problem with this legislation or with making sure the services are in place and are provided for victims.

I also want to say that the reason I am so interested in this is that I have had the opportunity to talk to victims of crime, such as Sharon Rosenfeldt, whom I have dealt with in the past. Her son was brutalized and murdered by Clifford Olson. We want to make sure that these types of families do not have to go through the same horror that she and her husband experienced attending these ongoing Parole Board hearings. They never received any restitution and never had their rights respected. We want to stand up for families such as hers and for others in the future as well.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to this bill. As I indicated, I think this is an important bill and an important step forward.

It is interesting that one of the thoughts provided for me in notes provided by members of our caucus is that Bill C-32 would codify long-used practices related to such things as keeping victims informed of the status of prosecution, ensuring that protection and security are available for the victims, and allowing victims to participate in sentencing and parole hearings. It would turn them into rights. What was particularly important for me was the reference that it would involve codifying long-used practices, and I will tell members why.

In 1989, my wife was hired by the Government of Nova Scotia to help set up a victim services division within the Department of Justice. It was to be built up from scratch, along with the systems to facilitate programs that would exist from one end of the province to the other, as a recognition that victims had an important role to play within the system and that they needed to be provided with the support and, in some cases, the resources and education to make sure that their rights were recognized and upheld.

Those were the early days of the rights of victims being increasingly recognized within the judicial system and process in Canada. In those days, certainly in Nova Scotia, I recall that it was often a question of finding room for victims separate from the accused within the court. It was a question of finding specific spots that victims could call their own, places they could go to be separate from the accused and receive support from justice officials at that time. That was often how basic it was in those beginning stages of trying to ensure that those services were available. We have come some distance, and that is only a good thing.

The bill would further extend a number of rights to victims and their family members. They or a spouse, dependant, or guardian mandated to act on their behalf would be able to demand to be informed about the resources available to them in the criminal justice system. They could also request information on the status of an investigation and prosecution, make a victim impact statement, apply for a publication ban in cases involving young victims, obtain information about the convicted parties, and gain restitution from the convicted.

As I said, this is an important initial step by the federal government to establish this framework, this charter, to clearly indicate the rights of victims and the responsibility of the justice system to recognize those rights.

Why is this bill important? It recognizes the impact that crimes can have on individuals, their families, and their communities, and it would give them better access to information, tools, and services.

The parliamentary secretary spoke to that particular point when he was up earlier. He talked about how important and urgent he thinks it is, and he named some victims. We all, in our constituencies, have dealt with families and victims of crime. We have all seen the damage that can be done through the criminal justice system.

That is one reason why I was so disappointed the government brought forward time allocation on this bill. It has only been in the House for three hours up to this point, and it is being limited. I think we may end up dealing with this for a total of eight hours. There are a lot of members on all sides of the House who want to speak to how important the bill is to victims in their constituencies, to families and others who have been involved in these issues and are pleased to see Parliament moving forward on this. I am pleased to see this moving forward in the House, but disappointed that it has taken eight years for it to get to this stage.

The government clearly has been dragging its feet. Some would say, especially those on the other side, that it has taken so long because the government has been consulting. Surely, when we finally have legislation in this place, all members of the House who have been duly elected by their constituents, whether in they are in a recognized party or not, should have an opportunity to participate and provide the feedback they have received from their communities and the people in their constituencies.

We want victims to have access to the services and supports they need. We recognize that for many victims getting assurance that they can participate in sentencing and parole hearings and being informed of the status of a prosecution are very important steps. However, we want the government to provide real support and processes that will work.

That brings me to another disappointment I have with the bill. I have not heard the government enunciate that the bill it is bringing in feels in many ways a bit like a policy document. It is setting a framework with respect to how things should happen in the criminal justice system, the rights and the roles of victims and their families, when a lot of that would happen at the provincial government level, as it does now. The government is not providing the resources along with those added roles and responsibilities. We have seen this in some of the other legislation that has come forward, where the government has said that this will be, that this will happen, and who shall do the following, yet the provincial governments have ended up picking up much of the responsibility.

We just heard that the government cut its disaster relief to the provinces. There used to be a $1 million eligibility threshold for disaster relief. It is now $3 million. That may not seem like a big deal, but over the past 15 years, my home province of Nova Scotia has made 15 applications under the disaster relief plan that previously existed with the $1 million threshold. The new $3 million threshold would have meant that 14 of those applications would not have been eligible and that upwards of $20 million would need to borne by the province and the communities, many of which are small communities.

I am just illustrating my point about how the government tends to download roles and responsibilities to the provincial government without taking into account the attendant costs.

There will be, and there should be, an expectation that victims will receive the support that is clearly spelled out in the bill. They will demand them and the provinces will have to step up. That is not a bad thing, but in many cases there will be some financial responsibilities.

I am glad this bill has come forward. I support it. It is a good move. I wish the government would have allowed more fulsome debate on it so we could all tell stories from our individual constituencies, but it is a step in the right direction. We will have to ensure that in future Parliaments we are able to correct the existing weaknesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He said that, yes, we have a bill of rights, but it also needs the commensurate resources to accomplish anything. Knowing this government, we might see good intentions, but no real measures to achieve the desired goal.

I would like my colleague to talk to us about the need to add resources immediately to ensure that the spirit of the bill of rights is respected and that people can truly benefit from it.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. It is all well and good to lay out the principle and to give direction that one shall do this or do that. I am providing the context in this case of a lower level government, but without the commensurate resources. What is in fact being accomplished, other than raising the expectations perhaps of people who, in this case, deserve to be treated better? That is one of my concerns.

Nonetheless, it will not prevent me from supporting the legislation. It is a weakness, though, that will have to be addressed later on down the road.