Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to rise in the House today to participate in this shortened debate on Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act. I agree with the minister that this is an extremely important concept and bill. The devil is often in the details, but this bill also represents a first step.
I would like to begin by thanking the minister for his openness during the examination of this bill, if nothing else. I am less satisfied with the way that this is happening here in the House, because we are being given only two or two and a half hours to debate at third reading a bill that includes many extremely important provisions. What is said in the House at the various stages of a bill is often very important for the courts and for Canadians, because the debate often provides indications as to how the legislation should be interpreted. The speeches are therefore important. What we say in the House becomes important because it often explains the intent of the legislation.
I would also like to thank the NDP members who sit with me on the committee that examined this bill. They are the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the deputy justice critic, and my colleague from the House leader's office, the deputy House leader and member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. They did a remarkable job of supporting me on this file. Our priority throughout the process was to try to understand the bill of course, but also to ensure that the bill did what the minister said it was supposed to during the countless press conferences he held, accompanied by victims. As I have often said, whether at second reading, during speeches, at committee stage or at report stage here in the House, we try to properly assess the legislation. If there is one thing that horrifies me, it is when people say they are doing one thing when they are actually doing another.
It is very interesting. We heard from many witnesses. I counted about 40 witnesses who appeared before the committee. In fact, there were 42, to be precise. I cannot say that the witnesses were on one side or the other. What mattered most to all of the witnesses was putting victims at the centre of the debate. I think that is the most positive thing that stood out about the victims bill of rights. That was the most common remark I heard. Although people were not entirely reassured that the victims bill of rights will in fact give them what they have been asking for for such a long time—for it has its limitations—they were extremely happy to see that we were talking about them. They were also happy that we were listening to them. It was much more about listening to them, rather than talking about them. The minister said earlier that he was taken aback by the scope of the harms suffered by victims and the costs they bear. Whether physical, psychological or material, the costs to victims are huge. The very notion of “victim” is being broadened as well. We do not always know who the victim of a crime is. Indeed, the victim's family and friends all suffer with that individual.
When we add all of that up and realize that according to the numbers we were given, victims bear 83% of the costs incurred, that is troubling. The government is saying that the law will ensure that there is some sort of restitution, but we have to take that with a grain of salt. That is really the problem I have with this bill of rights, but I will try to remain positive today. There are no guarantees. Since this comes from a government that is so bent on mandatory minimums, huge maximums and suppressing certain rights, I understand why the minister made a point of talking about a “measured and balanced system” in his pro-victim speech.
He understands the potential limitations of this bill of rights within a criminal justice system that is based on the presumption of innocence and a charter of rights that also imposes limitations on how things are done. The trial still has to be fair and balanced for the accused. It is not easy to strike a balance between focusing on victims and applying the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system with regard to the rights of the accused.
That is why I often say that we have to be mindful of what we say in public. We should not give the impression that we are going to solve all the problems, when that is not necessarily what is going to happen.
We had good meetings at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We were able to raise certain problems for both victims and legal experts. Legal experts tend to see the downside of legal provisions, which can sometimes be misinterpreted. They could hamper the criminal justice system and undermine values such as the presumption of innocence, which is part of a fair and balanced trial. In that context, one might assume that the two parties would have diverging opinions, yet they were both somewhat dissatisfied with the bill of rights.
Representatives from victims' associations entered the committee room with their eyes wide open. They knew that even though the government claims that this bill will solve the world's problems, it would do nothing to change the fact that roughly 80% of the costs are borne by victims and their family and friends. Nonetheless, they were happy to find out that we had recognized certain rights, including the right to information. However, we are still not going far enough.
I proposed some very reasonable amendments to the victims bill of rights. If someone has the right to information, they should not have to ask for it. However, under the victims bill of rights, the victim will have to request information. The victim will still have to beg for rights that should have been fully recognized a long time ago.
Let us take a look at clause 6 in the bill:
Every victim has the right, on request, to information about
(a) the criminal justice system and the role of victims in it;
(b) the services and programs available to them as a victim, including restorative justice programs; and
(c) their right to file a complaint for an infringement or denial of any of their rights under this Act.
If the idea is to give victims a right that they have been calling for for a long time, we should simply say that they have that right. However, in committee, the government members rejected my amendment, which would have benefited victims. It would have made this bill of rights stronger for victims. This would have made the bill of rights extremely respectful of victims and would not have created an additional burden. Even if this did create an additional burden, which would not penalize the offender, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, what would be the problem?
It is because this would have required resources. We would have to provide the services required by an automatic system. In this case, I suppose we will just cross our fingers and hope that victims will not make too many requests.
I will quote clause 7:
Every victim has the right, on request, to information about
(a) the status and outcome of the investigation into the offence; and
(b) the location of proceedings in relation to the offence, when they will take place and their progress and outcome.
When I proposed an amendment to ensure that victims did not have to ask for this right, once again, members on the government benches refused, even though it would have benefited victims.
It seems to me that it was what victims had asked for, at the very least, and we could have given them that.
Later, clause 8 states:
8. Every victim has the right, on request, to information about
(a) reviews under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act relating to the offender’s conditional release and the timing and conditions of that release; and
(b) hearings held for the purpose of making dispositions, as defined in subsection 672.1(1) of the Criminal Code, in relation to the accused, if the accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit to stand trial, and the dispositions made at those hearings.
That seems evident to me.
I have said this before, but I am going to say it again. When I worked as a lawyer in my riding and I went to the courthouse, we knew who the victim in a certain case was when we walked down the hall: it was the person who seemed to be asking themselves what they were doing there, what was happening and who had absolutely no idea what was going on.
I regularly follow what the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has to say. Sue O'Sullivan does an extraordinary job. She is passionate about her work and cares deeply about the well-being of victims. She tries to help them in any way she can. The biggest problem is the right to information. Victims are not involved in the proceedings. I think that there were limitations because of our criminal justice system. I am not calling that system into question. In fact, I fundamentally believe in the principle of the presumption of innocence. That should not be changed. Doing so would certainly change Canadian society. Of course, we want to be sensible about this and do not want to bog down the court proceedings.
Then again, I do not understand the problem with giving out this information. The devil is often in the details, so much so that the entire system is then called into question.
There is the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. When I speak to a victim or a member of a victims' support group, it is obvious that the problem is not the concept of sentence minimums. They do not have a problem with minimum sentences. More often than not, they want maximum sentences. However, as I often tell them, they will not truly be satisfied with any sentence, and with good reason.
I worked mainly in the area of labour law, and when a person was unlawfully dismissed, even though I sought the absolutely best possible outcome, it was still not satisfying. Why? Because no amount of money was going to make that person forget that moment. I would always tell my clients this. There is no such thing as a satisfying ruling. It is the same thing in criminal law.
As a society, how can we think that a sentence, even a life sentence, will make the victim less of a victim? How can we ensure that victims will not relive that moment for the rest of their lives and that they will not be psychologically scarred by it? Come on. Let us stop messing around when it comes to such important concepts and stop minimizing the issue by giving the impression that a law is going to change everything.
I often have a problem when the Conservatives use the expression “put your money where your mouth is”. This government passes strong laws but cuts resources. It passes tougher legislation but reduces the number of police officers. They are saying one thing and doing another. The Canadian victims bill of rights gives victims a so-called right, but that is it. They still have to ask for the information.
With respect to restitution, victims told the committee that it was wonderful to know there would be restitution in criminal cases, in court-ordered criminal proceedings. That is interesting because not only do these victims have to go through the criminal trial, appear as victims and witnesses, and go through the whole process that makes them relive what they already went through, but if they want restitution, they have to file a civil suit against a person who, in many cases, does not have the money to pay them. What kind of a system is that? They spend more money and pay more lawyers and end up with nothing or not a lot.
Including provisions for restitution in a bill of rights is interesting, but once again, it is just potential.
It is not automatic even if the person can prove that there was physical harm. We know that psychological harm is often harder to prove. Those who have practised civil law are well aware that the notion of moral and psychological harm is probably the hardest thing to determine. In some cases, people cannot do it right away. It is an ongoing process.
In this context, the victims believe that once Bill C-32 is passed, everything will work out because they can just ask the court. The clause says that the court will consider it; it is not automatic.
There is something I especially agree with, although not everyone agrees. Some legal experts are worried about certain provisions dealing with how victims will give evidence and whether or not witnesses will be identified. Clearly, as a lawyer myself, I also have some concerns. We always have to ask how this will be applied by the courts. That being said, when we have confidence in the legal system, which I do, barring proof to the contrary, our judges, crown prosecutors and defence attorneys are doing their job. What I always find interesting is examining the provisions. An application does not have to be granted automatically when a victim asks to give evidence without being identified, seen or heard, or even giving his or her name. A procedure exists; there must be a hearing that meets stated criteria.
That eases my concerns somewhat, but it is important that the courts dealing with these kinds of applications treat them with caution, bearing in mind that a trial is public by definition, and it is important to put that on the record. This is really quite particular, and there are specific cases where the victim or their family could be in danger, for example.
Obviously, when it comes to minors, it is a different situation altogether. However, that is not exactly what is set out in the victims bill of rights, which applies to all kinds of victims, not just children. That is one of the problems.
I mentioned the other problem in my question to the minister. I did not get the sense that the provinces and territories were very enthusiastic about this. In response to a question, Quebec's justice minister said that her province already has a victims bill of rights. I spoke to many crown prosectors who were a little insulted. They felt as though they were being told they were not doing this already. Many speak to victims and keep them informed. People must not think that this is not already being done. Unfortunately, it is not done everywhere.
Again, let us talk about resources. All these fine bills are nice, but there are no resources. Crown prosecutors are doing their best. They arrive in court—I have seen this because I practised law—with a big pile of files; they have to talk to each victim, inform them, ask them if this suits them, if they are happy and whether they know that such-and-such a thing is going to happen at this time on that day. Even crown prosecutors told us in committee that this could be pretty tough without more resources, more crown prosecutors and more judges to hear certain cases.
The biggest problem for victims—and I say this often—is that the legal system is too slow. I quite like the Canadian legal system, but speed is not its strong suit. A trial that takes too long leaves the impression that justice is not being served. These are other things to consider.
There is a terrible deficit and imbalance in the justice system. This is becoming a big problem. It is often overlooked at budget time. Let us think about that on this World Day of Social Justice. I do not want to preach about this, but the need is great. We have a law-and-order government and there is nothing wrong with that, but it has to go about things the right way. It has to give resources to the people who need it. Given the cool reception of the provinces and territories, a number of discussions will have to be organized between Justice Canada and its provincial and territorial partners, in order to ensure that this bill of rights does not go by the wayside and become one more Conservative file that the NDP will have to fix after the fact.