Good morning.

I would first like to thank you for allowing us to participate in this consultation. I am representing the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, a victims' rights advocacy organization, of which I am the president.

To begin, I want to say that we welcome the work undertaken by the federal government to publicize the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the CVBR, to put the provisions of the bill into practice, and to support the mission of numerous organizations.

With the financial support of the Department of Justice of Canada and the collaboration of the ministère de la Justice of Quebec, we have carried out numerous large-scale projects relating to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I have appended a brief summary of these initiatives to the short memorandum I submitted.

In the time I have been given, I would like to highlight several obstacles that impede victims' path when they want to exercise their rights and remedies. I will speak first about the lack of knowledge of the victims' rights set out in the CVBR and the problems associated with the right to information, which have been extensively documented through the consultations held in Canada and in the reports of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. One of the things the ombudsman has recommended is that victims be permitted to exercise their right to information and that they be provided with information proactively rather than in response to a request.

This is an interesting proposal, but it should be studied in greater depth before being implemented. For example, the provisions of provincial and federal statutes that govern confidentiality and privacy should be examined. The arrangements that should be put in place also need to be considered and a very broad spectrum of victims consulted to obtain their opinions and proposals.

The CVBR presents certain difficulties. One of the most significant relates to the fact that it sets out a brief, non-exhaustive list of the rights that victims may exercise in various contexts and before various bodies. The rights are not well defined. The obligations of those bodies and of the actors in the justice system are not specified.

As a result, it does not enable victims to know what they can expect. They have to deal in multiple ways with various components of the justice system to get answers to the questions that they are concerned about.

To alleviate these difficulties, many organizations have developed directives and service statements to enable victims to better understand their responsibilities and the measures that have been put in place to address their needs and their rights. Commissioner's Directive 784 at Correctional Service Canada, entitled “Victim Engagement”, and directives issued by Quebec's Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, are good practices that could inspire other organizations that to date have not clearly defined their commitments.

The CVBR presents a fairly large obstacle because of the fact that the rights are discretionary in many cases and the actors in the justice system have a lot of latitude for determining what is reasonable and what is in the interests of the sound administration of justice. The CVBR also depends on the resources available to organizations. It depends on their respective missions and how they define their position vis-à-vis victims. It is also subject to other laws, such as the Criminal Code and the laws that govern the correctional system. These are realities that are not always clearly understood and accepted by victims.

When the CVBR was adopted in 2015, Parliament wanted to put complaints mechanisms in place to enable victims to exercise their rights when they feel aggrieved. That was a step forward. Unfortunately, the results we see at present are somewhat disappointing. In the federal entities where complaints mechanisms were put in place from the start, very few complaints are reported, something like 20 per year, for all federal organizations, which is really very low. It suggests that victims are not aware of the existence of those mechanisms.

With respect to the provinces and territories, there is no picture at present that would enable us to evaluate how they have responded to the CVBR's requirements, nor have there been any analyses.

That is an important question. A critical assessment is needed, to examine what has been put in place in all organizations in Canada. We need to determine the nature of the problems and apply corrective measures. The collaboration of the provinces and territories is essential for doing that assessment.

The ombudsman has made recommendations concerning a proposal that is often advanced: that victims be offered the opportunity to exercise judicial and administrative remedies. At present, they have no right to appeal a decision or judgment.

We believe that this complex question should be studied by a working group, which should look into the feasibility of this kind of remedy in our criminal justice system and make recommendations. That would provide a broader view of the question, expand the discussion, and identify the measures that should be taken.

I would like to add a few words about restitution, another major element. The provisions of the CVBR were meant to expand the use of restitution. If you read the—

Transcript

Discussions (0)