SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 11:15:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very disturbed, as a member who has served on a number of committees, that the work of committees is being used in this manner. Committees are an opportunity for members to contribute both expertise and thoughtful reflections from their constituents. What are the hon. member's thoughts about how using a thoughtful committee report in this manner, weaponizing it to name and shame, hurts the work of committees in general?

74 words

Thoughtful

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:16:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is correct in her assessment, when she says that it is weaponizing a report that was supported unanimously by all parties in the House. Filibustering, and ultimately making it a very partisan issue, does not do a service to the work that the committee members have put in.

52 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/15/23 11:16:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I ask my colleagues' permission to share my time with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I am going to talk about the report that is the main focus of our debates today. With respect to the amendment proposed by the Conservatives, I will let the minister defend himself as he sees fit. Those of us in the Bloc Québécois are also outraged by this treatment—I would not say preferential treatment, but the treatment Mr. Bernardo received. It seems victims rights' have been ignored in this case. It is shocking to us too, but I will let the minister present the arguments he deems appropriate. We will see when the time comes. I was proud to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we studied these provisions. Of all the areas of federal jurisdiction, the Criminal Code is among the most important. I do not wish to diminish the importance of international relations, the environment or other matters, but the Criminal Code has an impact on the daily lives of many Canadians. The federal government's power over the Criminal Code and criminal activity is a very big deal. I was very proud to take part in those debates. The report contains a number of recommendations. They are all important, but I would particularly like to draw my colleagues' attention to the provisions set out in recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10 regarding victim's participation in the process. I think this is essential. In a criminal trial, decisions are often made about the punishment that will or will not be imposed on the accused. Some consideration is also often given to the fate of the victims of the crimes in question, but perhaps not always enough. At least, victims may not get a chance to participate effectively in trials that involve them. We heard from many witnesses on this issue in committee. What came up quite frequently was the lack of information. Victims do not know what rights they have during their attacker's trial. We think it would be important to run education campaigns on this issue, while taking into account the different areas of jurisdiction, of course. My colleagues know how important that is to me. Raising awareness should not mean encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. We think there could be discussions on this, but public education campaigns have to be set up to properly inform citizens of their rights when they are victims of a crime. There is the whole issue of the ombudsman. The position was vacant for quite some time, but was finally filled last fall. A new ombudsman was appointed. However, the budget for the office of the ombudsman is rather meagre. I think this should be reconsidered to ensure that there is a full team of competent people working with the ombudsman, because the role of ombudsman is essential in the criminal trial process. The public education campaigns and the ombudsman are important elements that we will find in more detail in recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the report. That said, I do not want to minimize the importance of reading all 13 recommendations. I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to recommendations 11 and 12. We talked about them recently. Important groups are calling for this. Motions to this effect have been moved in the House. We must absolutely ensure that the publication bans in criminal cases have the desired scope and effect. Publication bans are issued to protect the victims, not to protect the public. However, under the current system, most of the time publication bans are requested by the Crown prosecutor, sometimes almost automatically, often without the victims having been consulted. Once the publication ban has been ordered, the victim does not have the authority to ask that it be lifted. However, victims often want to speak out publicly in the media about the crimes committed against them. They want to talk about how the crime affected their lives and their family's lives. They want to have some input on the punishment they consider appropriate in their case. In every case, the victim comes up against a publication ban that they do not have the right to breach. If they do, they could be prosecuted. This makes no sense to me. Victims testified at our committee about this issue. I do not even understand why this rule is in place. They are quite right. We need to allow publication bans, because they are essential in some cases. Some victims say they do not want the crime they were a victim of to be discussed. They do not want their family, neighbours or children to read about it in the media. However, other victims say that it is therapeutic for them to talk about it. The needs and rights of the victims must be considered. Publication bans are central to victims' rights and needs. I recommend that the House pay particular attention to this issue, which is addressed in recommendations 11 and 12 of the report. This strikes me as being essential. There is also recommendation 13, which deals with the issue of restitution orders. In a justice system that many say should be increasingly restorative, perhaps victims should be provided with better access to restitution. Any time a trial extends over several days or even several weeks, it might make sense to assume that the presiding judge has a good idea of the damages suffered by the victims. It might also seem appropriate for the judge to rule on some of those damages and ensure that the orders made are binding and that the victims have the opportunity to ensure that they are enforced. Access to restitution is important. Publication bans should be ordered or sought by the Crown only after the victim has consented to the ban. For example, the judge could seek or require the victim's consent before issuing a publication ban. If the victim does not consent, a discussion could take place with the judge and the Crown as to why a ban should or should not be imposed. A mechanism must be found to ensure that victims participate in these orders and are able to have them lifted when it is in their best interest. Again, I could never overstate the importance of supporting victims, as I discussed at the start of my speech. However, we need to invest funds in providing the necessary information to victims. At the moment, that information is meagre. Although I dislike using the same word twice, the adjective seems to fit the ombudsman's office and information services too. As things stand, a person who becomes a victim of crime is unaware of the services they are entitled to receive. The victim's level of involvement in the process will depend on the prosecutor assigned to the case. I think we need to inform victims, but we also need to inform Crown attorneys about what they must offer victims to have them participate, understand the process and exercise their rights along the way.

1202 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 11:26:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech a great deal. I can tell that he has worked really hard on this issue. In fact, he was on the committee that studied it. I would like his opinion on the fact that we are looking at an amendment that has nothing to do with the committee's report.

58 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Jun/15/23 11:26:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would not go so far as to say that the amendment has nothing to do with the adoption of the report, since we are talking about victims' rights and the case of Mr. Bernardo, who was transferred to a medium-security penitentiary without the victims being properly consulted or informed. Maybe there is a connection, but I agree with the member that it is certainly not a direct link. At the time we wrote our report, we certainly would not have been able to discuss Mr. Bernardo's case, because his transfer has only just taken place. There is a connection, but it is tenuous. I think we have to wait and see what the minister comes up with. I think the connection is too tenuous for us to be able to discuss it in a useful way at this point. I would rather have the minister explain this motion. Personally, I want the House to approve our report as written so we can move forward. Once again, this is too important. We need to strengthen victims' right to information, provide funding to the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, launch an awareness campaign, and review the parole process and publication bans.

208 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/15/23 11:28:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure working with the member on the justice committee. It is important to note that the justice committee has done an enormous amount of work unanimously in trying to move things forward for Canadians, despite sometimes being in a minority Parliament that is quit divisive, My question for the member has to do with recommendation 3, which talks about the establishment of national standards for minimum levels of support for victims of crime. It calls for the federal government and the provinces to work together to establish those standards. Right now there is no right to victims' assistance and there are no common standards among the provinces.

114 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Jun/15/23 11:28:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it was a pleasure working together on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Despite the differences of opinion from one party to the other, I think we have always been able to work respectfully, and I value that. With regard to recommendation 3, it is indeed important to establish minimum standards for victim services. Again, I am proceeding very cautiously, because it seems to me that the foundation of this work is fragile. We are talking about respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec, each of the provinces and the three territories. This needs to play out the same way it did in committee, that is, with respect, and the provinces should be consulted. If the justice ministers of Quebec, Canada, Ontario and all the provinces agree to work together to establish something, I would be the happiest man alive. Even a sovereign Quebec wants to work with Canada and with other countries. That is the crux of the global political, economic, cultural and social reality. We must work together to ensure that the services offered to victims are effective and useful to everyone.

193 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Jun/15/23 11:30:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my dear colleague a very brief question. I gather that it was important that all the recommendations in the report be adopted and that the report be concurred in as is. I imagine that several of the witnesses that the committee heard from were victims. If there was one priority for victims, what was it?

62 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Jun/15/23 11:30:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her question and for the incredible work that she does in her riding and in the House. I will reiterate everything that I believe is essential: victims' participation in the justice system, restorative justice, publication bans, and victims' participation in parole hearings. However, the fact is that victims' right to information needs to be reinforced, so that is probably the priority.

76 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/15/23 11:31:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank and salute my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for the fine work he does every day on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have had the privilege of substituting for him on a number of occasions. His are big shoes to fill. I will begin by saying that I am disappointed we are once again dealing with a Conservative ploy to disrupt the agenda, to waste time, when we have important work to do. Today, the Conservatives are doing it by raising an extremely important, fundamental and serious issue that we must discuss, so we will discuss it. It is true that it is an important issue. I am not being critical because the issue is not important. Questioning the minister's authority or legitimacy is important, but when do we get to move forward? It is rather ironic that the week we are debating the hybrid Parliament so members can have a family life and spend some time at home, we are sitting every damn night until midnight. Mr. Gérard Deltell: Pardon me? Mr. Yves Perron: Am I not allowed to say “damn”?

197 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/15/23 11:32:39 a.m.
Watch

It is always a question of whether or not it offends another member. In this case, it struck a nerve. I recommend that the hon. member use other words.

29 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/15/23 11:32:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague will surely agree with me that there is irony in this. I withdraw the word. We are then sitting every evening until midnight. That was my introduction. Now, we need to talk about this serious and very important subject of victims’ rights. This committee report seems fundamental to me. However, we need to be very vigilant on the issue of jurisdiction. The report’s first recommendation refers to creating a national working group to agree on consistent standards and practices—or at least as consistent as possible. I understand the merits of that proposal. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned it earlier. However, we will have to be very vigilant when working with the governments of Quebec, the other provinces and the territories, because they are the ones responsible for the administration of justice, and therefore all these conditions. As indicated in the report’s second recommendation, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights must be reviewed to include the right to support. This is fundamental. I will tell a sad story from last year. There was a traffic accident in my riding. It was an accident caused by someone who was intoxicated. It therefore became a criminal act. The body of a 17‑year‑old youth who was killed in the accident—I find it hard not to get emotional when I talk about it because I knew these people really well—became an exhibit in court. That is an example of victims’ rights. Members may look at me funny, but they will understand the connection. This young person's body became evidence. After three days, the mother called me in terrible distress because she was unable to retrieve the body of the child she had just lost. I understand the police investigation and everyone understands there are processes, but we can all see the hole in our system. During all that time, the parents were being told nothing; they were not there. They are the direct victims of the criminal act that was perpetrated, and they were not being looked after. The member for Quebec was contacted and this was then resolved. However, those people suffered for many hours. Maybe that could be fixed, and we could do better. People need to be informed because, in my example, no one was giving the parents any information or telling them when it would be over. I am sure we understand what I mean. It is very important that we take care of victims of criminal acts. The fourth recommendation of the committee’s report pertains to information for victims. This too is fundamental. This information should be provided automatically, and victims should not have to fight for it. That is not normal either. The person has already been victimized by a crime and their life is destabilized; we need to help them, not put new obstacles and new challenges in their way. This is fundamental. Again, it is clear that this victim will want information. To me, making the information available seems central to everything. Next, information should be provided to people who are victims. In the case of the mother I talked about earlier, no one gave her any information. We need to inform people about their remedies and their rights. Doing that will take money. That was mentioned earlier. Victims should also be allowed to participate in the process and be informed. Let us imagine a victim of an extremely violent crime. A release process is under way, but the victim was not informed; she is then faced with a done deal. Imagine this person’s anguish. The victim may wonder whether this person will come back to see them or whether there will be reprisals. It is important that victims be included in the judicial process, that they be respected and properly supported. That, too, is a question of resources. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord also stressed the importance of the recommendations that deal with publication bans. Sometimes, people can act very quickly and these bans will be issued. If I believe the findings of the committee’s report, that is being done without the victim’s consent. However, the first person that should be consulted in the entire process is the victim. It may be that the victim does not want the publication ban. That also carries a risk. For example, a person who was shaken, who communicated but made a mistake by conveying too much information, may be found in breach of the ban by the court. This is clearly not acceptable. Beyond all that, there is the issue of resource allocation. I approached one of my Conservative colleagues who gave a speech this morning to ask him whether we had the necessary resources in our justice system to properly represent, among others, the Crown. I have major doubts about this. Perhaps more money should be transferred to Quebec and the provinces. This is also very important. Let us talk about support resources. What we are seeing when we work in our ridings is that there are a lot of community organizations. These community organizations have extremely dedicated people who are there for the right reasons, to help people. When we inquire about these people's living conditions, we realize that they work an incredible number of hours for a scant wage. That requires moral fortitude. Those who deal with human suffering have a hard time shaking it off when they go home to have supper with their families. These people provide extraordinary services to the community. I dream of the day when there will be enough funding for these people, who I see as discounted government subcontractors because taking care of people is a collective responsibility. In the case of victims of crime, in particular, people need to be taken by the hand, accompanied and informed about what they can do. They need to be asked what they want and what they do not want. For instance, if they choose to allow a publication ban, they need to be told what that means. They need to be asked if they are ready to live with that. Often, things move quickly, and things are not explained because the resources are not there, because there is no time. People must have the time to take care of victims. In closing, let us talk about the amendment. We will not start defending the minister, who seems to be aware of very few things in his life. However, a bit like my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, I question the relevance of tying that to this report, although there is indeed an indirect link. I think there are other ways of addressing that. The importance of the report must not be overlooked, and it must be adopted.

1154 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 11:41:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am impressed with the speech of my colleague. I have heard clearly, in every word he has said, how he feels about this issue and how important it is that we move forward on the recommendations in this report. It covers many of the issues of victims' rights. A constituent of mine was the victim of a drive-by shooting that left her completely paralyzed. That is when I found out how little services and support we have, whether they are financial compensation, or the avenues that are recommended in the report, the avenues for people to talk to someone, and some sensitivity. Resources that are there are clearly not sufficient. I would like to hear more from my colleague on what more he thinks we need to do, over and above these great recommendations before us.

140 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/15/23 11:42:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her kind words. What more should be done? At every level of bureaucracy, the people being served should be taken into consideration. Public servants should look beyond financial considerations and look after their needs. Certainly, if they have to deal with 18 cases in a single day, that becomes impossible. For example, some youth protection cases have been dragging on for a long time, so resources are needed. Beyond that, I think that the culture needs to be changed, hence the importance of launching awareness campaigns and setting standards. That is why we agree on the principle, with the usual caveat of respecting Quebec and the provinces.

117 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/15/23 11:42:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the previous speaker raised a very important point, which is our dependence on volunteer organizations that deal with victims and the struggles they have to raise the necessary money not just to provide the services, which are sometimes done on a contract basis, but to keep the lights on and the doors open at those organizations. There is very little support for that core funding that is very necessary for those organizations. I would like to hear a bit more from the hon. member on his views on core funding for victim support organizations.

98 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/15/23 11:43:28 a.m.
Watch

What a nice softball from my colleague, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for this great question. Not only is it abnormal, it is revolting. These dedicated people who want to help others have to spend half their week, if not more, filling out damn paperwork. Keeping an organization on mission for six months or more takes funding, but once they do manage to get funding, after six months they have to account for how those funds were used, which involves filling out more than a couple of forms. They have a stack of papers to fill out. I imagine that that answers my Liberal colleague's first question. What more is there to be done? Let us look at how administration can be burdensome and tedious for those who want to help people.

134 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/15/23 11:44:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke emotionally about the need to provide and share information. My question is quite simple. What concrete steps can we take to improve these processes for both victims and the system?

35 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/15/23 11:44:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question. What more can we do? It comes back to the same thing. We need to fund our resources properly. We need to provide them with permanent and adequate funding so that they do not have to wonder every year whether they will be able to continue operating. We need to make sure that we have quality resources. Earlier, I talked about something important, and that is a culture change in the justice system. The most important thing is to take care of victims. I think that is what it comes down to.

102 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/15/23 11:45:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am of two minds about this debate this morning, because a concurrence debate about a unanimous report, which is on a very important topic, is a good thing, but I am also concerned if the real intent behind this debate is a diversion from others business of Parliament rather than actually talking about the important recommendations of this report. Certainly, we heard from a wide range of people in the committee on this report. Many individual victims of crime came at a great personal cost and retold their stories of what had happened to them and the effects of being a victim of crime. We heard from many organizations that provide services to victims of crime. I want to pay particular thanks to the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has a very active victims' advocacy program. We heard from the victims ombudsman, and I want to pay respect at this point to both the previous victims ombudsman, Heidi Illingworth, and the current ombudsman, Benjamin Roebuck, for the important research and advocacy work they do on behalf of victims in this country. I hope what we can do in this debate is maintain the focus on what we heard from those victims and those victims' advocates and the recommendations that were unanimously approved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. An important function of this debate today could be to encourage the government, in the many different departments involved, to make progress on these recommendations. There are other mechanisms available in this House for holding government ministers to account. I know the hon. members of the Conservative Party know that, they have been using those, so again I will stress my concern that we are not actually doing this debate for some other purpose when there are other mechanisms available. No matter what one thinks about that issue, they are there, they have been used and they can continue to be used. I hope the impact of this is not going to focus on another issue, which is important, yes, but another issue rather than the issues that were raised in this report. Again, I am concerned we keep that focus on moving forward on the recommendations in this report. There are a number of chapters in this report, and it kind of amazed me that in the end, on a topic that has often been contentious in Parliament, we were able to reach a consensus on 13 recommendations. That is a bit of a miracle, especially in a minority Parliament and especially on an issue that has previously been so contentious. I bring attention to chapter 4, which talks about services for victims of crime, and I will come to that in just a minute. There is a whole chapter on the right to information about the legal process in this report. There are recommendations on the rights of victims to participate in the legal process and how we meet the challenges victims face when they try to participate in this legal process. There is a chapter on the right to protection of victims while they are participating in the process, and I will return to that one a little later on. There is an important chapter on the idea of restitution, on how often victims of crime cannot be made whole again in both financial and circumstantial areas. There is a final chapter on complaint mechanisms and remedies, so when the system goes wrong for victims what they have available to them to make that known to the system and to those who have the power to change that. If we talk about services, one of the important things I learned from this is that in the Victims Bill of Rights there is no right to access to services for victims of crime. I think that is an oversight, and this committee, in recommendation 2, says that we should fix that. We know it is going to be a challenge. The federal government shares the justice field with the provinces and administration of justice belongs to the provinces. That is why in recommendation 3 in this report it talks about working together to set some minimum standards of what is available to victims, in terms of support services and participation in the various parts of the legal process. I was very pleased to hear my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois agreeing we do need to work together to achieve some minimum standards. Again, that is part of the miracle of this report, which is that even on contentious federal-provincial issues we were able to reach agreement on how to better serve victims. What do victims really need? There is a whole range of things, but the thing we heard most often is they need support services that are tailored to their needs and that quite often those needs are different. Victims from different backgrounds have different needs to support them participating in the process and also to recover as a victim of crime. Lots of times, the services that we have available do not actually take into account the different circumstances, especially of those who are most marginalized in our society and especially of indigenous people. Having culturally relevant and culturally appropriate services available to victims is something we often fall down on and we do not do such good job. When we are talking about services for victims of crime, we have tended to ignore mental health services. Again, my colleague from Comox has been a great advocate for mental health services. This report acknowledges that victims quite often need very specific kinds of therapy in order to get back to full participation in society, after having been victimized by criminal activity. I commend that chapter to everyone in the House. It is a very important chapter on the gaps in our approaches. I was surprised to learn that is legal aid is generally not available, in any form, to victims of crime. Even though I taught criminal justice for many years, I had not really thought about this from the perspective of victims. We provide legal aid to defendants, and of course we have prosecutors who are paid for by the public. However, when it comes to victims of crime participating, legal assistance is generally not available to them. We depend on advocacy organizations to provide that advice and that assistance to victims of crime. That brings me to the chapter on the right to information. Again, we did something peculiar when we established victims' rights and we said that the victims have rights to ask for information about the system. What we heard, again and again, from victims and their advocacy organizations is quite often victims do not even know what to ask. The system is so unfamiliar, so complex and so unforgiving. In particular for people who suffered trauma, it is so difficult to navigate that they do not even know what rights they have or to ask how to access those rights. An important recommendation in this report, recommendation 4, is that we change the onus of providing information to an automatic provision of information to victims. Some jurisdictions do a better job than others in making sure victims understand what their rights are and what services are available to them. Again, we largely depend on those volunteer organizations to inform victims of their rights. However, if someone is not in touch with one of those organizations, they are left in the dark about how this very complex legal system of ours actually works. Let us change this from saying that it is on victims to request information to it is on someone specific. We have not tried to solve that problem in this report, but we have indicated that it needs to be someone specific. We cannot just say there is right to information without saying who is actually going to deliver that information. It is up to the governments, again, because we have a justice system that is split over jurisdictions. It is up to those jurisdictions to work together to figure out who is going to make sure that victims actually do get the information. One of the things we could do is provide core funding to victim organizations that are actually already doing this work. If we provided better funding to those organizations, they could make sure that victims were getting the information that they need on how to participate in the legal system, how to make sure their voices are heard in our legal system, but also on the very services that might be available to them in the community. Now chapter 7 deals with the right to the protection of victims' identity and the right to privacy of victims. Again, this is probably one of the most surprising parts of the report. We heard very moving and effective testimony from victims of sexual assault, like Morrell Andrews, who talked about something we did many years ago in our legal system. We set up a system of publication bans so that the identity of victims of sexual assault would not become public. Over the years our understanding of sexual assault has changed, and many of those victims of sexual assault were surprised to learn that they were subject to a publication ban, that they were not allowed to talk about what had happened to them in any way. Many of those victims of sexual assault also felt the publication ban, by protecting their identity, ended up protecting the identity of the perpetrator. What we heard quite clearly in the testimony that was before us, and it was very eloquent, very difficult testimony for people to give on their personal assault experiences, was that the current arrangements take away agency from victims of sexual assault. Therefore, in recommendation 11, the committee has recommended: first, that those who are subject to publication bans need to be informed and consulted before that publication ban is put in place; and second, that they need to have the right to opt out of that publication ban. Many members know that I have spoken several times in the House about being an adult victim of child sexual assault. The veil of secrecy that was put around me at that time was helpful, but it was most helpful to the perpetrator, who had eight other victims. It would have been quite important for me, though as a minor I probably could not make that decision, for someone to make the decision that it was information the public needed to have. We have heard quite clearly from adult victims of sexual assault that they want their agency back. They want the ability to talk about their experience, they want the ability to warn others and they do not want to be treated as if they are minor children when it comes to the issue of sexual assault. Those are just a few of the highlights in this report. When I talk about trying to keep our focus on those recommendations so we can move forward, I want to talk a bit about one step forward that the government has taken as a result of this report. We have Bill S-12 currently in the Senate. The last time I checked two days ago, the Senate justice committee was just about finished its consideration of Bill S-12. It would take recommendation 11 from this report and put it into law. When that recommendation is finished in the Senate, it will come back to the House and we will have the chance, in approving Bill S-12, to give that agency back to victims of sexual assault, to give them the right to know about publication bans before they are imposed and the right to have the ability to opt out of those publication bans. When I say that focusing on these recommendations is important to make progress, there is a very specific example of the many things that are in this report so that, if we keep the focus on the unanimous support for those recommendations, I believe we will be able to make progress on victims' rights and services for victims. Again, this is a minority Parliament and often fractious. However, in the justice committee, somehow, on very many issues we have been able to work together to achieve unanimity. The report on improving support for victims of crime is my best example of how Parliament can work, Parliament can be very functional and we can make recommendations that are important to the lives of everyday Canadians.

2113 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 11:58:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a wonderful report. The recommendations cover so many different areas that I have concerns about when it comes to victims' rights. As I had mentioned earlier, a constituent was the victim of a drive-by shooting and left paralyzed. That is when I started asking questions about what kinds of supports there were, both financial and restorative as well as emotional supports. I found out that there was very little there. I congratulate my colleague for the excellent work the committee did on bringing this forward. I would like to hear him spend another minute or so speaking about other suggestions over and above the recommendations that are here today.

117 words