Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak at report stage of Bill C-32. I also had the pleasure and privilege of attending a hearing of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this subject. However, that does not make me an expert on it.
As I said at second reading, during the debate in the House, we are going to support Bill C-32. However, we are afraid that the bill may create expectations that will not be met. To some extent, that is what we saw this morning, when we considered Bill S-5. The government can have the best will in the world and try to come up with a bill that lays the foundation for certain principles: a victims bill of rights, in this case. However, if the resources are not forthcoming and fail to accompany the goodwill and the principles, we are a long way from being able to achieve the goals sought by the victims. They do have the right to be supported by the system in the ordeal they are going through. It is a system over which we have at least some control in the House.
One might think that there is logic of a sort for a law and order government to introduce a bill like this one and give it some resources so that it has teeth. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening, but we have seen this in a number of other areas.
The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made a number of recommendations, most of which were ignored. With respect to the recommendations, in fact, the Conservatives took the ones that were the least disruptive or the most neutral in terms of process in order to salve their consciences, in my view. However, other recommendations that were much more substantive were set aside.
Why have an ombudsman for victims of crime if the government is not up to accepting her recommendations and the ideas she presents, which are the result of her experience and the work she does from day to day?
When the bill was tabled in 2014, after many years and numerous press conferences announcing that it was on the way, the ombudsman was extremely critical of the bill and its content. She went so far as to say that she would recommend amendments as Bill C-32 went through the various stages of the process. That is what she did. She submitted some 30 recommendations for changes, but only 14 were accepted. Some were even amended in part. In the final analysis, the recommendations were watered down by the committee which, as we know, has a Conservative majority.
I do not intend to discuss this bill of rights only in a negative way. As I said, I will be voting in favour of the bill, just like my colleagues. The idea of a victims bill of rights is a welcome one, according to what we heard from the groups representing victims of crime. However, speaking of a bill of rights for victims, some of the witnesses came to talk about problems with the content, either because it represents more a kind of harmonization of the federal approach with the provincial approaches, or because ultimately—as the Canadian Bar Association said during the committee hearing—the wording of some sections of the bill could have harmful effects that are not being properly taken into consideration by the government at this time.
In spite of everything and in spite of all the amendments that were submitted to the committee, no changes were made, which is extremely harmful because there were some constructive amendments. The only amendment the Conservative majority on the committee accepted involved a review of the scope and effectiveness of the bill of rights after two years.
As a result, two years after the bill of rights goes into effect, we will check whether it has achieved the goals that the government has boasted about and that the victims are entitled to expect. To get the amendment passed, however, there had to be a sub-amendment by the Conservatives to change the review period to five years. In other words, we will not see whether the bill of rights is actually effective until at least five years later.
I do not want to say that this is smoke and mirrors, because the idea is commendable. Nonetheless, it might not meet the expectations set by the Conservative government's hyperbole at all its press conferences, where it boasts about the upcoming victims bill of rights.
The victims themselves or the victims groups mentioned it a number of times, including before the committee. The testimony of Arlène Gaudreault from the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes is quite representative of what the committee heard. I quote:
Presenting this bill [of rights] as a quasi-constitutional tool meant to strengthen victims' rights indicates to victims that their rights will be taken into account and enforced. However, that is a misleading message. It fails to make the necessary distinctions and creates false expectations. Therefore, it is bound to lead to dissatisfaction among victims.
That is a key point because, even though the victims groups realize that this bill is flawed, they get the sense that they will have an active voice in the process as a whole, especially when it comes to criminal trials against an accused and the parole process.
In fact, they will have a stronger voice than they have as things currently stand, which is a partial explanation for our support for the bill. However, the place the government wants to give victims is not as tangible as the government would have us believe. This view was shared by many of the witnesses in committee.
I would like to come back to the fundamental question from the Canadian Bar Association. The government has introduced a number of law and order bills. I would include here the omnibus budget bills, as they contain a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and legal provisions.
The Canadian Bar Association had an opportunity to appear on a number of occasions before these committees in connection with these amendments to the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Generally speaking, its criticisms were quite scathing and went to the heart of the bill. Because this association represents the views of the majority of lawyers from coast to coast in Canada, we should pay attention to what it says.
In this case, the bar association’s opinion was that the wording of some of the clauses could be challenged under the Constitution or have undesirable effects that might possibly work against the victims. I would have expected this government, which must act responsibly, to have given consideration to these comments from the Canadian Bar Association.
The Standing Committee on Finance heard evidence from the Canadian Bar Association. I know it is quite strange to speak about this committee and this association. Nonetheless, we heard from this association on a number of occasions, because of these mammoth finance bills that the government introduces.
As in other committees, including the public safety and justice committees, the government seems to dismiss out of hand not only the credibility of the Canadian Bar Association, but also its significant and constructive contribution, as if it were an ideologically opposed enemy. It should perhaps view it as an ally that could help improve bills.
I say again that the role of the opposition is not just to oppose all the government’s initiatives. We oppose some bills and we support some bills, such as this one. However, I think the fundamental role of the House of Commons and the opposition is to point out to the government the shortcomings of legislation introduced in the House.
This role has been flatly rejected by the government since it was elected with a majority in 2011. This is very sad, because the process itself and the credibility of the House are called into question when these cases, which are many, are challenged in the Federal Court or the Supreme Court.
In summary, we are going to support this bill. However, we fear that it is nothing but a facade, just an empty shell that does not fully meet victims' expectations.
