Debates of Feb. 4th, 2015

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my New Democrat colleague for his excellent speech.

Something is bothering me about today's debate. The Conservatives accuse us of not being on the victims' side. I find that very offensive, since the NDP has always supported victims' rights. Obviously, being the victim of a crime is a terrible thing. My thoughts go out to victims and their families, who go through very tough times and sometimes even struggle to make it through.

I also know that my New Democrat colleague has spoken a number of times in the House on behalf of the families of victims, lobbying the government to pass bills that protect victims. Unfortunately his own bill was rejected by the Conservatives.

Could my colleague talk more about the Conservatives' doublespeak? They choose the type of assistance they want to give victims, yet refuse to implement good solutions suggested by the New Democrat opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point, but we will fix that in the election in 2015. The New Democratic Party will form government in our country, and we will not only correct the most egregious parts of the agenda of the members opposite, but will bring in our vision, the vision that has been articulated by the leader of my party, the MP for Outremont, who is so clearly leading the strongest opposition that has ever been seen in our country and in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for having always defended victims.

I would like to talk about how the debate on the bill currently before the House is once again being shut down. The official opposition is prepared to debate this bill and to talk about the importance of giving victims a voice. However, we are once again dealing with closure.

I would like my colleague to comment on this measure that the Conservatives keep using, namely imposing closure on bills that they themselves introduce in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, and I said this in my remarks earlier.

It does not matter if we support this legislation, and we have indicated that, but it does not mean that we have to ram it through. When legislation comes to this place, it is our opportunity to bring the perspectives of our constituents forward, to address it, comment on it, to share our stories and those experiences, and to raise what we think are the strengths and weaknesses of particular legislation. Just because we support a bill does not mean that it should be rammed through the House. Likewise, if we have concerns about particular legislation, it should not be rammed through the House.

How many times has there been time allocation? It is in the eighties, and that is very bad. It is bad government.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage of debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights Act, which will build upon the government's continuing efforts to protect Canadians and communities.

I would like to focus my remarks on two areas specifically. First, how the bill complements and builds upon current policies, legislation and practices for victims of crime; and second, how the bill assists victims of crime to deal with the financial impact of victimization.

The past 30 years have seen many important advances for victims of crime. Victim-serving organizations and various levels of government have contributed tremendously to making a substantive change for victims of crime in this country.

An important milestone in our country's work for victims of crime was the endorsement in 1988 and 2003, by federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice, of the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, which recognizes victims' interests and promotes, at a national level, fair treatment of victims in our criminal justice system.

The Canadian victims bill of rights will complement the solid foundation set out in the Canadian statement and will go one step further by entrenching rights of victims into a single, federal law.

The Canadian statement has guided and informed the development of policies, legislation and practices for victims of crime across Canada. Each province and territory has developed victims services and legislation unique to their provincial and territorial reality. Provincial and territorial legislation for victims of crime in some cases includes provisions worded as rights, such as the right to information, to consideration of personal safety and to respectful treatment.

Bill C-32 will not impede existing provincial and territorial legislation but rather complement it. This is important. The bill reflects provincial and territorial input received from a variety of processes, including the public consultations and ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories. It is also informed by best practices from provincial and territorial victim legislation and programs. It has been carefully crafted to deliver on the government's objective of transformational change for victims of crime, while respecting constitutional divisions of power.

This respect for federal and provincial jurisdiction is reiterated in the preamble to Bill C-32, which explicitly recognizes that criminal justice is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

In addition, Bill C-32 also balances the rights of victims of crime with other fundamental interests in the criminal justice system, such as the need not to interfere with prosecutorial independence or police discretion.

Section 20 of the bill specifies that rights must be applied in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances and not likely to endanger life or safety, interfere with police or prosecutorial discretion or compromise an investigation or prosecution.

During the consultations held in 2013, the government heard clearly from stakeholders about the importance of these principles. Many stakeholders, including provinces and territories and criminal justice professionals, argued that these principles underpin the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system.

We all recognize this, so I am pleased to see that Bill C-32 provides rights granted to victims that must be interpreted and applied in a reasonable way and with regard to these principles.

I would now like to pay particular attention to the rights and amendments relating to restitution. Many victims expressed concerns over the financial burden of crime and these provisions have been designed to address these concerns.

A disproportionate percentage of all costs related to crime are borne by victims. Numerous submissions addressed the financial impact of crime on victims, including concerns about loss of income as a result of the crime and an inability to work out-of-pocket expenses related to criminal proceedings and additional costs that were borne by victims. In some cases, these expenses placed people in situations of serious financial hardship.

The Canadian victims bill of rights aims to address this imbalance and relieve some of the financial burden of crime from victims.

The bill clearly indicates that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and, when not paid, the right to enforce the order as a civil judgment. These amendments acknowledge the harm done to victims and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders. The bill would make a number of amendments to the restitution regime in the Criminal Code to ensure that the existing legislative framework properly supports these rights.

Under the current restitution regime, victims have expressed frustration over collecting the amounts that have been ordered to them. Furthermore, the amount of moneys ordered consistently exceeds the amount of moneys collected. Victims' confidence in the criminal justice system is undermined when restitution orders are not paid.

The Canadian victims bill of rights would amend the Criminal Code to direct that judges must consider ordering restitution as a part of an appropriate sentence in all cases. Before a decision is made on restitution, the court would be required to inquire with the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to provide the victim with an opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution for losses or damages. If the court decides not to order restitution, it would be required to state the reasons for its decision into the record.

The proposed amendments would enable victims to use an optional form in the Criminal Code to assist them in calculating and describing the readily ascertainable losses and damages. A motion accepted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would also amend the Criminal Code to allow a public authority responsible for enforcing a restitution order to be designated by a provincial or territorial order in council or a minister's order. This would allow for bodies to be designated more quickly and efficiently, and would help to avoid lengthy delays that may result from the proposed requirement for regulations.

At its core, this bill aims to give victims of crime a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. In the context of restitution, this would be achieved by permitting victims to speak to their ascertainable losses and damages in a victim impact statement. In determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender, the court must take this statement into account. Furthermore, the offender's financial means or inability to pay the restitution order cannot in and of itself prevent a court order from issuing the restitution order. This provision of the bill codifies decisions from various appellate courts across Canada.

The proposed reforms regarding the payment of the restitution order were built on the necessity for victims to receive reparation for their losses and damages. The bill would provide that the offender's failure to pay the restitution by the date or dates specified in the order would allow the victim to enter any amount that remains to be paid as a judgment in any civil court in Canada. This provision would provide clarity to victims and to the court about exactly when the restitution order can be deemed unpaid and properly entered as a civil judgment against the offender.

This carefully tailored restitution regime, when entrenched in criminal law, would have many benefits. It would provide victims with effective reparations and allow them to avoid lengthy civil proceedings. Equally important, these measures would ensure that offenders are accountable for the harm they have done.

This bill represents a balancing of the many interests at stake in the criminal justice process. It would also help to improve victims' experiences and assist them to deal with the financial costs of their victimization.

I would urge all members to join me in supporting the victims bill of rights act to provide victims of crime with a more effective voice in the criminal justice and corrections system.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going through the bill and I am a little puzzled how, in the actual provisions of the bill, the government is professing that this is a new mechanism whereby any victim of a crime can go through a procedure and participate, whether investigation or prosecution, in the course of the trial.

However, this bill only has a procedure for the federal departments or agencies to establish a complaints system and, as we all know in this place, the Criminal Code is actually investigating and prosecuting by provincial and territorial authorities. Section 26 does say that victims must go to a territorial or provincial entity if they cannot get recourse elsewhere.

Can the member tell us how exactly this law would actually enable Canadian citizens to file a complaint or participate in that case?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me enlighten the member on the Constitution Act, 1982 which delineates the separation of powers between the federal government and the provincial government.

The federal government is charged with constructing the Criminal Code of Canada and the provinces are charged with implementing the Criminal Code of Canada.

The federal Parliament, by way of jurisdiction according to the Constitution Act, 1982 and before that, the British North America Act, only has jurisdiction over federal institutions.

I would refer the member to read the British North America Act, to read her history, to refer back to the Constitution Act, 1982. That should give her the right information in terms of why we here in the Parliament of Canada only have jurisdiction over federal institutions and federal organizations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to talk and to attempt to appeal to victims through legislation such as this. We, too, support and want to be there for victims of crime.

What my constituents really want to see is a proactive government that understands that the best way we can protect victims is to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place. If the government gave just as much attention to dealing with that issue as it puts on spin, we would have safer communities.

Does the member recognize that if we invest in our communities, through different types of programming, especially those that deal with youth, gangs and things of this nature, that we would be able to prevent crimes from taking place, and therefore there would be fewer victims? All of society would benefit.

The government should not only be talking about this, but it should be delivering the financial and other resources to make that happen.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable. Canadians can count on this Conservative government to look after all citizens of Canada, including the most vulnerable.

The member brings up some interesting perspectives. We have funded many programs to enhance the security functions of our police, to give them more tools and more law enforcement abilities, and that party has voted against it time and time again.

The other day my wife was making a soup. This anecdote will elucidate exactly what the NDP and Liberals say here in the House, that they support this bill. My wife was making a vegetable soup and it was very thick. My eight year old boy came into the room and said, “Mom, is that a stew?” She said, “No, it is soup”. He said that he was going to call it stew because it looks like stew. My wife said that he could call it whatever he wanted, but it was still soup.

The victims bill of rights is exactly that. It is what it says it is. There is no hidden agenda here. There is nothing untoward here. The opposition members say they support it. We have had 500 different consultations. It has been before committee. It has been debated in this House.

Let us think of the victims who need this bill, who need this enacted into law. This is a transformative piece of legislation. Opposition members should get with the program, get on board. Let us pass this legislation and get it through the House as quickly as possible. The victims of crime here in Canada are waiting for it.

Access to Parliamentary Buildings

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege regarding a surprising incident that occurred today on Parliament Hill.

I am of the opinion that there was a a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member. The incident in question occurred at 2 p.m., when I was physically prevented from entering Parliament and getting to the House of Commons in a timely fashion. Here is what happened: at around 1:55 p.m. today, I took one of the parliamentary precinct shuttle buses from the Valour Building to get to question period. At around 2 p.m., the bus stopped in front of the east door of Centre Block, the Senate door. I felt it was unnecessary to ask the driver to make to another stop by the door of the House of Commons and, as I have done dozens of times since May 2011, I simply decided to enter Parliament through the door where we were stopped. Before I could even lay a hand on one of the doors to get in, an RCMP officer asked me to identify myself. I immediately and respectfully informed him, as I always do, that I am the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. The officer asked me if I had my pin. That was the first time in four years that an officer outside Parliament asked to see my MP pin.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I no longer wear my pin all the time because, following the events that occurred in Parliament in October, we were told not to wear our pins all the time so that we are not targeted should another tragic incident like that occur. I therefore had to apologize to the officer for not wearing my pin. He told me that I needed my pin or my pass, otherwise I could not enter the building. In an attempt to resolve this issue, I asked the officer to let me speak to one of the security guards inside the building so that he could confirm that I am in fact a member of Parliament. The officer in question then physically blocked my access to the door and said that the RCMP is now responsible for deciding who gets in, that those officers are armed and that I could not enter if I did not have my pin or my pass.

I believe that this obstruction was a breach of my parliamentary privileges. Access to the parliamentary precinct, whether it is to attend question period, vote, attend a committee meeting, give a speech or simply to listen to the debate, is a strictly protected privilege. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 110 that:

In circumstances where Members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider my question and the facts I just related. I believe you will also find that my privilege was breached and that I was prevented from carrying out my functions as an elected member of the House of Commons. If you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, not only was this a breach of the member's privilege, it was a violation of the law. Allow me to explain. On September 25, 2014, I was on my way to Parliament when I was stopped by the RCMP at the corner of Bank Street and the road that goes to the West Block. The same thing happened to me. That day, when I told the RCMP officer that I was an MP, he replied in English, “I don't care.” I told him that there was going to be a vote in the House of Commons. He replied, “I don't care.” I asked him what he would do if the vote caused Parliament to fall. He replied, “I don't care about the Parliament.”

There is a fundamental problem. I would like to read this definition of parliamentary privilege:

Pursuant to parliamentary privilege, the holder has full access at all times, without obstacle or interference, to the house of Parliament the holder is a member of.

Government MPs seem to be saying that he did not have his pin. The RCMP officers outside and the security guards inside are here to keep parliamentarians safe. How likely is it that the RCMP guy outside did not know the member? His job is to know all members of Parliament as well as our House of Commons security guards do. Since the Speaker of the House ruled in my favour on September 25, a motion was moved in the House of Commons. It went to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Now it is February 4, 2015, and we have not yet received the committee's report because they are blocking the committee's report.

We are not saying that we should have all of the rights in the world, but since the member was elected by his constituents, he has the right to enter the House of Commons at any time. The Parliament of Canada Act makes it clear that we cannot be prevented from entering.

I want our colleagues to understand that the member was at the door and clearly told the RCMP officer that there were security guards just on the other side of the door who know him and the officer simply needed to verify with them. For the RCMP officer to turn around and say that they are in charge and the member cannot enter and to refuse to check with the security guards on the other side of the door constitutes a breach of the member's parliamentary privilege, and that is serious. It is very serious. We have a right to be here. The people in charge of security within the parliamentary precinct should know all members. It is a right and a privilege, and I hope you will find that there has been a violation of the Parliament of Canada Act.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with everything my colleague just said regarding the rights of members. I just wanted to add one thing. Security for MPs has been increased, but most of the additional security officers are not bilingual. However, under the Official Languages Act, anyone responsible for security and anyone who interacts with members of Parliament or the public must be bilingual. I think it is also the Speaker's duty to verify that and ensure that the RCMP assigns bilingual personnel to control access to Parliament. Perhaps this would also help the officers to recognize members more, as the previous speaker said.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take an inordinate amount of time, but I am very disappointed that we are having this dialogue in the House of Commons today, after October 22, when we saw what happened.

We do have to take responsibility for our identification. When I go through airport security, sure it is a bit of nuisance to take of my belt, my shoes, or my jacket, but these are things that protect us. Our job in this Parliament is not only to protect ourselves but to protect those who are in these buildings.

I think it is important that our RCMP officers and our security personnel on the Hill take their jobs seriously. To assume that they will recognize every one of us, regardless of how long we have been here, I think is too much to expect.

I urge all members to have ID or some way of identifying themselves before they try to enter these buildings.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as many members I am sure are already aware, the procedure and House affairs committee is currently dealing with this issue. It is in the midst of compiling a report to report back to the House.

All members take the issue of access to the House of Commons precinct as an important right. I would suggest that the member talk to his House leader and members of the procedure and House affairs committee over the next seven days. I understand that it is the committee's intent, at the very least, to try to come up with recommendations.

I do not know if there would be any value in initiating a separate report. Members of the committee are already looking at the subject and debating the report. We are familiar with the previous incident.

All members of the committee are concerned about having access, but we also need to be concerned about the security of the premises.

I would suggest to the member that he allow for the discussion to occur among the members of his party. They could then bring suggestions forward to the committee, which is putting forward a report that will include recommendations. It would be timely if the member could do it some time this week. We might be able to resolve it quickly, as opposed to having another Speaker's ruling on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to hear the entirety of the comments by the member who raised the question of privilege regarding access, but I would like an opportunity to review them to see if there are specifics relating to this specific incident that are worthy of comment.

However, I will make this observation. There are some other important points that have been raised. All of us hold sacred the right of access and the privileges of parliamentarians in their ability to do their work without interference. Of course, after the incident of October 22, I think there was broad agreement that there was a need for efforts to strengthen security around this place.

It is important, as members of Parliament, that as we conduct and carry out our business around here, we recognize, whether we are dealing with the Senate force, the House of Commons security force, or the RCMP in the building, that they are our partners.

As members of Parliament, we all recognize that the measures that have been put in place to date are measures that have been supported by all parties. There has been a broad consensus behind the extent to which there has been enhanced security, and we should view those carrying out that important work on our behalf not as a hostile force but rather as our partners. They are doing that job for us. It is our job to try to work with them as partners to make it easy for them to do that job and to make it easy for them not to focus on us but on others who may be threats. I simply say that as a word of encouragement to all members of Parliament as we go through this process, which will be ongoing, of adjusting to new security measures.

It is obviously an adjustment for the people carrying out the security but also an adjustment, to some degree, for members, some of whom are not accustomed to, as I am not, wearing a pin and carrying an ID with me that would help me out. That sometimes means that I have to be a little patient, and I am quite happy to do that in that circumstance.

Again, I would appreciate the opportunity to come back to the House on this topic, after having reviewed the specifics, if further comment is necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise particularly to respond to the description by the hon. government House leader of the state of broad consensus on new security measures. I am very concerned that the members of this place, at least in the position of the Green Party, members here for the Bloc Québécois, Forces et Démocratie, and independents, have not been consulted at all, nor has any information on any findings about security been shared.

I find that the privileges of the hon. member were violated if he was not even allowed to have internal House of Commons security verify his identity, which it could have had in a moment.

I would like to believe that all members of the House, in principle, but also in practice, are equals. We all witnessed and experienced what happened on October 22. We have all formed conclusions about the ways in which security could be improved. We would very much like to have access to official reports, analysis, or anything that has been done to analyze forensically what occurred on October 22 and how it can be improved.

I very much regret that former sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers is not with us to steer us through the new process, because I think his wisdom would cast a lot of light on what should be done in future.

I would like to ask the government House leader, when he speaks of broad consensus, to think about those of us who have had no access to any of the information to which he refers.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of my House leader.

It behooves us all to work with our partners and to ensure that they have the ability to do their job properly to protect us.

I was stopped at the gate in a taxi the other day. The individual officer did not recognize me. I gladly produced my ID to demonstrate who I was. That is why we are issued government ID, namely to demonstrate who we are when the need arises. I was more than happy to do so. It took me less than half a moment to do it and I was on my way.

We should use some common sense in helping our security forces who try hard every day to protect us. I do not think it is too much to have on our person the instruments that we are given to demonstrate who we are.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would advise the hon. government House leader that we only have about two and a half to three minutes before I have to end the debate on this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond briefly to the issue raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding briefings or information on the steps toward improved security.

I know that the Acting Sergeant-At-Arms and the head of House of Commons security are both very open and willing, and have been available, to speak with members of Parliament about measures to consult with them. I do not think I am being presumptuous in saying that they would be happy to answer any questions she might have and provide any information she might be seeking.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's. Again I would advise the member that we only have two minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick.

This debate is about privilege and it is quite simple. With parliamentary privilege comes responsibility. We have a responsibility as members of Parliament to carry our badge or ID. Most of the time, 99 times out of 100, the officials recognize us, but when they do not, we have some responsibility. Of course we have rights, but with rights come responsibilities. It is as simple as that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

The Conservatives are trying to defend government policy in a kind of bizarre way. They are not touching in any way the question of privilege raised by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you will be taking under serious consideration the concerns that have been raised by the member.

Quite frankly, I hope that the government has a better thought-out intervention than simply going off politically and saying that the traditions of this place do not matter. They certainly do matter. Democratic institutions matter and we will defend them, because that is what we are all about.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to clarify that the contract of the police officers currently in the House of Commons requires them to recognize 98% of all members. RCMP officers, however, are not under the same obligation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That concludes the debate.

I assure the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup that the Speaker will consider everything and respond as soon as possible.

I thank all members for their interventions.

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