JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

• 0940

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order.

For this committee, as constituted, on the issue of the role of victims in the criminal justice system, I want to welcome Catherine Kane, counsel in the criminal law policy section at the Department of Justice.

Some people here—John Maloney, Andrew, Jack, and I—were here in the last Parliament when Catherine came to committee. For other new members, I just want to tell you that Catherine knows everything that can be known about this subject matter. The reason she's here today is to brief us on what we can expect as we're taking a national look at this issue. Catherine has a really good sense of what's available in the provinces, and can orient us on this particular topic.

I view this as kind of a briefing session, Catherine. We're really glad to have you here. I know you have some things to say to us, so we'll just sit back and absorb it.

Thank you.

Ms. Catherine Kane (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thank you for the introduction.

This may be a bit repetitive for those of you who heard it last year, but as Mrs. Cohen said, I think it's probably good background. I'll try to recap the government's involvement in victims issues since the early 1980s, without a great deal of detail. I'm happy to provide more detail, but only if you wish. Otherwise, it will be a little bit too long. If anyone wants more information on specific issues, I'll be happy to provide it.

The government's interest in victims issues can be traced back to the early eighties, and even before that, to the early seventies, when we began to cost-share the criminal injuries compensation programs. At that time, a few provinces had criminal injuries compensation, and the government thought it would be a good idea if there were some minimum standards. Other provinces were encouraged to come on board with similar legislation, and a cost-sharing agreement was crafted.

In the early 1980s several governments, including the federal government, expressed an interest in looking at how we could better respond to issues of concern to victims in the criminal justice system. As a result, a federal-provincial task force was struck, which was chaired by the Province of Ontario and included most provinces and the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General.

That was basically a broad-based examination of the needs of victims and their experiences with the criminal justice system. It was tasked to look into the need for legislation, funding of programs, the availability of services, what services should be developed, and to recommend to ministers how to communicate better the needs of victims. As well, it was to start to look at how the two levels of government could work together, because it's an area of shared jurisdiction.

As most of you know, the federal government enacts the criminal law, and that law applies throughout Canada. However, it's the provinces that are responsible for enforcing the law, prosecuting offenders, and basically all the administration of justice issues. Victims services seem to fall into administration of justice, and therefore it's largely a provincial responsibility.

The task force submitted a report to ministers in July 1983, and it addressed recommendations to health, social services, justice, judges, police, policy-makers and so on. It was a very broad-based approach with respect to criminal procedure, reforms, victims services, provision of information, special needs of the elderly and children, victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual offences, aboriginal victims, families of homicide victims, and of course the need to identify resources.

The nature of the recommendations were fairly overwhelming to most levels of government. It didn't give us a blueprint for action to have those 79 recommendations. It was agreed that of course further consultation would be necessary to try to come up with models of implementation for those recommendations.

In the meantime, work was going on with respect to domestic violence. The Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs tabled their report in 1981, and as a result the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence was established. Victimization surveys were ongoing. The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General issued guidelines to the prosecutors and police in the territories to address the issues of spousal assault. Sexual offence legislation was introduced and passed to reform the law on sexual assault.

As well, issues of child sexual abuse were in the forefront. The Badgley committee reported, and as a result, amendments to the Criminal Code regarding child sexual abuse became law in 1988.

• 0945

To follow up on the task force recommendations, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice collaborated on several initiatives in the mid-1980s to fund demonstration projects to explore the best models of providing services. For example, groups would seek funding to try something in their own communities, often with provincial partnership. As a result, many demonstration projects were funded.

For example, with respect to victim impact statements, around that time several different models of victim impact statements were tested in various parts of Canada, which ultimately led to our being able to legislate a victim impact statement provision that allowed for flexibility so that those jurisdictions, communities or judicial districts could carry on with what they felt worked better in their own areas.

In 1984, the Victims Resource Centre was set up as a repository for information within the Solicitor General's department. It was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1988, but was basically closed as a resource centre. Now it's a justice department web site, which we hope to enhance over the coming year in order to make it more user-friendly to victims and to provide them with greater information.

In 1985, Canada was one of the co-sponsors of the United Nations declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. That UN statement became the framework for the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims, which was developed between the provinces and the federal government and endorsed in 1988.

In 1987-88, we were engaged in looking at a more comprehensive strategy to address victims' needs. That included the development of legislation that became Bill C-89 in 1988 and the development of a new cost-sharing agreement for criminal injuries compensation to try to enhance the provision of compensation. The cost-share was increased to provide a greater level of funding to the provinces.

In addition, a victims assistance fund was created, which was a 10¢ per capita share, so the provinces could develop services or programs they didn't already have—for example, information programs, or things that weren't covered by the criminal injuries compensation agreement. There was a two-year fixed period of time for that contribution. And in the meantime, we thought, the revenue from the victim fine surcharge that was being developed in the Criminal Code would catch up and provide enough revenue for the provinces to develop victims services when the victims assistance fund ended.

As I mentioned, Bill C-89 was passed in 1988. There were several amendments to the Criminal Code, including victim impact statements and the restitution provisions, which were re-enacted and modified in the sentencing legislation in 1995. There were also the provisions for the proper return of property, the victim fine surcharge provision and the publication ban provisions. Rather than go into it in the chronology, later on I'll provide a brief recap of the provisions now in the code that I think address some victim concerns.

Other initiatives to address particular needs also took place. For example, Bill C-15 was the child sexual offence legislation, which included new offences relating to sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation involving children. More recently, in 1996, Bill C-126 built upon the child sexual abuse amendments in Bill C-15 in terms of peace bond orders and prohibitions against people loitering in places children frequent and so on.

In 1988, around the time of Bill C-89, we were also discussing with the provinces whether there should be national victim legislation to reflect the Canadian statement of basic principles. At that time, the provinces were of the view that most of the content of the Canadian statement of basic principles fell within their jurisdiction and that any legislation should be at the provincial level, and this is what in fact occurred.

• 0950

But in order to have a joint agreement to guide policy and legislative development, the Canadian statement was crafted and all provinces endorsed that. It wasn't widely publicized, but it certainly has been a blueprint for the development of legislation at the provincial, territorial and federal levels. Many of the provincial statutes include a preamble or a statement of purpose, principles or goals, whatever they're called, that basically reiterates those principles. Some of them have crafted them as entitlements and some of them have also used the term “rights”.

The cost-sharing agreement for criminal injuries compensation terminated in 1992, as did the victims assistance fund. More recent law reform initiatives, although they have certainly addressed victims' concerns, haven't been under the rubric of a victims of crime initiative as Bill C-89 was. However, many law reform initiatives we've been involved in have attempted to ensure that the victim's rights are balanced against the offender's rights. In some cases, the concerns of victims have been addressed in such a way that participation is enhanced.

For example, in 1992, Bill C-49 addressed amendments to restore the protections for complainants of sexual assault in order to restrict the questioning regarding their previous sexual activity. In addition, definitions of consent were enacted in terms of sexual offences, and restrictions on the defence of honest belief and consent were enacted.

In 1994, the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code responded to some of the concerns of impaired driving victims groups, like MADD and PRIDE. They pointed out that the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident was only two years and yet the penalty for refusal to blow or impaired driving could be five years where an accident was involved, so the penalties were brought into line.

Bill C-104 created the ability to get special warrants for bodily samples for DNA analysis in 1995. Amendments to the Young Offenders Act in 1995 also clarified that victim impact statements were available in young offenders proceedings.

Last year, the criminal law improvement bill also included amendments to address the concerns of victims, including clarification of the provisions regarding the use of blood sample evidence in impaired driving prosecutions. Mandatory prohibition provisions were strengthened and the peace bond provisions were strengthened.

The sentencing amendments made amendments to the victim impact statement provisions to make it clear that where a victim impact statement has been prepared, the court is required to consider it, rather than the court being “permitted” to consider the victim impact statement.

In addition, Bill C-41 repealed the unproclaimed restitution provisions and made some other changes to the existing provisions in order to enlarge the scope of restitution and to make it clear that restitution could be ordered on the court's own motion. The person aggrieved did not have to apply for a restitution order at the time of sentencing.

Bill C-27, passed at this time last year, included provisions to facilitate the testimony of young victims and witnesses by expanding the use of screens and closed-circuit TV in order to include both complainants and witnesses under 18. Also, it included the offences of prostitution, child pornography and assault, in order to gain the protection of those provisions. It also clarified that murder is first-degree murder where a death is caused by a person while committing a criminal harassment offence.

Also, Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records and sexual offence proceedings), is designed to increase the protection for sexual offence complainants by requiring judges to carefully scrutinize applications for production of the complainants' personal records.

The Criminal Code also includes other provisions. I referred to the victim impact statement provision, which allows the court to consider the victim impact statement at the time of sentencing where one has been prepared. It's a statement to describe the harm or loss suffered by the victim of the offence. The way it's worded in the code, the provinces can designate programs that specify how the victim impact statement is to be collected and so on. However, it appears that even where the province hasn't a designated program, victim impact statements are accepted in a variety of forms.

• 0955

The code also includes a provision that says the court can consider any other information provided by a victim of an offence, which covers off the situation where there is no designated program and there is some doubt about whether the court can receive that information.

The code also includes the victim fine surcharge provision, which is an additional penalty to be added on to any other sentence, a monetary penalty. The regulations currently prescribe $35 as the maximum surcharge where the disposition is other than a fine, and where there's a fine it's a maximum of 15% of the fine.

We've been engaged in consultations with the provinces for several years to try to determine what a better amount might be, because it's quite apparent that those limits are not producing significant revenue for the provinces in order to allow them to do what they want to do for victims. That revenue all remains in the province, and certainly if the provincial directors of victims services appear before you they can better describe what they use that revenue for.

There are restitution provisions in the code that permit the court to order the offender to make a monetary payment to the victim for readily ascertainable loss or damage to property or for the expenses incurred as a result of bodily harm suffered when caused by an offence. For example, it's not for pain and suffering, but if you had any sort of long-term care expenses associated with your victimization, that could be the subject of a restitution order, or it could also apply if you've had a loss of income because you're not able to work or whatever.

The enforcement of restitution is as a civil judgment. Some of the provinces are trying to make arrangements to assist victims to enforce their restitution orders, such as, for example, waiving all the fees associated with filing and directing them to various enforcement mechanisms in order for them to realize the judgment.

There are also many provisions in the code that are designed to facilitate the provision of testimony of a witness or a victim and to better protect his or her privacy, to the extent that it is possible. Probably the most common or most familiar are the provisions with respect to sexual offences, which permit the court to order a publication ban on the identity of the victim or of any witness under the age of 18.

There are also general publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code—on application—for sexual offences. The court has a discretion to remove people from the courtroom where it feels it is in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. There are also provisions that permit that a support person accompany a young victim or witness in sexual offence proceedings. There are provisions to permit testimony to be given from behind a screen or by closed-circuit TV where the judge is of the opinion that this is necessary in order to obtain a full and candid account.

There is also a provision to restrict the personal cross-examination of a witness under the age of 14 years of age by an accused who is self-represented. In these circumstances, the court can appoint counsel to act on behalf of the self-represented accused to conduct the cross-examination. This provision was enacted to enhance the provisions to protect child victims because it was discovered that even though a child could testify from behind a screen or by closed-circuit TV, that protection became meaningless where you had an accused who was representing himself. That's why this provision is designed for the young victim witness under the age of 14.

There are also special provisions with respect to sexual assault victims. For example, where you have voir dire proceedings to determine if evidence of previous sexual activity is going to be admitted, there are publication ban provisions attached to them. Similarly, in the applications for personal records of complainants in sexual offence proceedings, those proceedings are subject to publication bans.

I've also briefly mentioned the criminal harassment provisions. There are also the purposes and principles of sentencing, which highlight the need to consider the impact on the victim. For example, two of them listed are to provide reparations for the harm done to victims or to the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

• 1000

As I mentioned before, all the provinces and both territories have now enacted their own legislation. It varies considerably from province to province, yet most of them have adopted, as a statement of principles or purposes, some reiteration of the Canadian statement of basic principles. Some of the provincial legislation have created a victims assistance fund, which includes revenue from the federal victim surcharge and from their own provincial surcharge. All jurisdictions now have surcharges on provincial offences, except Quebec and Newfoundland. That revenue is also used for victims services.

I can provide a brief recap of some of the provincial legislation, but I don't want to provide too much detail because some of the provincial people will be here and they can do a better job than I can.

As you may have read in the news, Manitoba just introduced new victims legislation on Friday, I believe. I haven't had an opportunity to look at it very carefully, but it seems to be similar to the B.C. legislation in terms of setting out what victims are entitled to—for example, the provision of information and access to services. It sets up the position of director, who will address situations where victims feel they have not received what the legislation indicates they are entitled to. The director can then investigate. The director is obligated to provide a report to the legislature annually. But that legislation has not yet been passed.

Manitoba, however, was the first province to enact victim legislation in 1986, and the current act includes a declaration of principles and a victims assistance committee that's designed to promote services and provide information to victims. It established a victims assistance fund.

Nova Scotia has the Victims' Rights and Services Act, which was passed in 1989. It uses the term “rights“, and sets out certain absolute rights, including the right to be treated with courtesy, compassion and dignity and the right to prompt return of property. It also includes other rights that are subject to the availability of resources, including the right to information about charges laid and progress of the prosecution, and services or remedies available.

Ontario has an act that is entitled the Victims' Bill of Rights, which was passed in December 1995 and proclaimed in June 1996. It sets out a range of principles regarding the treatment of victims of crime, extensive information rights about the criminal justice system in general and the progress of a case—investigation, prosecution, court dates, sentence imposed and release conditions.

British Columbia has an act that is often referred to an a model act. It was proclaimed in July 1996 and is very comprehensive legislation. Unlike some of the other provinces, it assigns the responsibility to particular justice system personnel. For example, it says all justice system personnel must treat a victim with courtesy and respect. In other subsections it directs, for example, the crown counsel to ensure that the victim is given an opportunity to have admissible evidence concerning the impact of the offence presented to the court. It also has a statement of goals in terms of what the government should promote to develop victims services.

Alberta has recent legislation that combines its victims programs assistance act with its criminal injuries compensation act. It also has a director who is tasked with implementing the act, receiving any complaints, and resolving any concerns of victims who believe they haven't been treated in accordance with the principles of the act.

In April 1996, when Mr. White brought his motion in the House, which was highly supported, one of the components of that motion was for the Minister of Justice to discuss with provincial colleagues how to address issues that were areas of joint responsibility.

As a result of that, in May 1996 at the meeting of federal-provincial ministers responsible for justice, the minister at the time, Mr. Rock, brought this to the attention of his colleagues. There was wide support for the provinces and the federal government to together look at how to improve the situation of the victim within the criminal justice system.

• 1005

As a result, a federal-provincial-territorial working group was established to look at several issues, including the feasibility of national legislation, enhancements to the victim surcharge provisions, how to better provide information to victims, how to provide more information about what was currently available, how to coordinate services and so on.

This group has now evolved into the merger of two groups with all the directors of victims' services that exist in every province and territory. Several provinces have in addition assigned a policy person or somebody who's responsible for their own victims' legislation.

This forum provides a vehicle to exchange information. The group has met on four occasions and will meet again next month. The group prepared an interim report to ministers in December, and I'll just briefly go over some of the highlights of the report.

The working group quickly came to the conclusion that there were far too many issues it could address and solve. Hence, an interim report was provided and a request that it be able to continue to examine these issues on an ongoing basis and share information between the provinces and the territories, hopefully to set up something on a more permanent basis that would allow it to create a more formal network, so if you had a situation in Manitoba and information was needed that could only be provided federally, it would be able to get that information to them quickly and they'd know who to call, and vice versa.

For example, if there were a situation in Manitoba where someone felt someone had been released on parole and a victim was intimidated by that, the group would quickly know who to talk to at the National Parole Board in Ottawa or whatever, to provide them with the information on why that decision was made, and so on.

Similarly if someone were inquiring of the federal government why this situation occurred in Manitoba, if it's the responsibility of Manitoba because it involved the prosecution or investigation of an offence, they could be referred quickly to the director of victims services, the crown attorney, or whoever could provide that information to them, and also share best practices between provinces. What might be occurring in victims services in Alberta would be certainly of interest to Prince Edward Island and so on. We would have a good network with great contacts and a great information base, and would be able to share that readily.

The working group looked at a range of emerging issues, including whether victim impact statements were meeting the needs of the victim; whether the victims' fund's surcharge provision could be properly enhanced to raise sufficient revenue to ensure ongoing victims' services in the provinces; and what could be done to increase awareness of all criminal justice personnel about the need to address the needs of victims and also the public. Some suggested, for example, victims' awareness day. In the U.S. there's a victims' rights week, that sort of thing.

The working group also recommended that its work continue to further explore the role of the victim and the role of the crown and other criminal justice personnel; to explore other funding sources; to examine the impact on complainants and witnesses in sexual offence proceedings regarding applications for personal records; and to explore the need for independent legal representation for victims in those situations and in other situations in non-sexual offence proceedings, often where it's clear the victim's interests differ from those of the crown and there are certain situations where they may feel they need independent legal representation.

It also recommended its work monitor restorative justice programs and the role of the victim within those programs, continue to develop an inventory of programs and services by jurisdiction, and raise awareness of their availability.

• 1010

The working group also recommended several particular amendments to the Criminal Code to address victim impact statement issues, victim fine surcharge, and publication bans, and they explored the notion of the establishment of some sort of victim office within the federal government to coordinate information and act as a centre of expertise.

The report was submitted to ministers in December, and all provinces and the federal ministers agreed that the working group should continue; hence we will continue. Provincial attorneys general supported generally the need for Criminal Code amendments to be defined.

Since that time, the minister has indicated that while she is quite prepared to go ahead with several of these amendments to address these concerns, this committee's study of these issues would provide increased information and background in order for us to develop other options for her consideration to better address the needs of victims and to ensure that the broadest input possible is provided so that when we go forward with legislation, it will comprehensively address the needs of victims.

I'll end there. If there are any questions....

The Chair: Can you let us know when the federal-provincial working group is meeting again?

Ms. Catherine Kane: It's June 11, 12, and 13.

The Chair: So just before our forum, then?

Ms. Catherine Kane: That's right.

The Chair: Okay.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I have a point of information, Madam Chair. Is there an analysis or a flowsheet that does a comparative look at the information per province in terms of their dealing with victims?

A voice: It's in the package.

The Chair: Did you get your briefing notes?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, sorry.

The Chair: That's okay. We have it right here.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much. Okay. I'm sorry. You can't keep all this information in your head; you need a sheet. Thank you very much.

The Chair: That's okay.

Thanks, Catherine.

Keep in mind that some of these provincial figures will be coming to committee over the next few days.

Chuck, take about seven minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Kane, for appearing today, and thank you for a very in-depth presentation to us. A lot of the questions I had were answered in your presentation.

As you're aware, a couple of weeks ago the minister suggested she'd be open to considering a national office, and you alluded to that.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I just wonder if you have an opinion as to what the function of that office could be. And when was this brought to the attention of the department? Have you considered it? Have you done any research into it? Have you taken a look at the U.S. office as a model? Could you just give us your thoughts on what that office would look like?

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes, actually I have visited the U.S. Office for Victims of Crime on several occasions. This was a notion that had even come up back in the mid-eighties, whether there should be some sort of similar body. I've also looked at models in Britain, such as the Victims' Services and Support Unit in the Home Office. And through our work on the United Nations Expert Group on the Victims of Crime, it appears there are many models.

Most governments—France, Switzerland, the U.K., and several others, plus the U.S.—have something within either their department of justice or a similar ministry. The Dutch do also. It's not always called an office for victims of crime, but it is some central unit that is responsible for ensuring that in the development of criminal legislation and policy, the victim's perspective is considered.

In the U.K., for example, they provide the services directly, because they don't have the same type of split jurisdiction as we do in Canada.

We've discussed this with our provincial colleagues through the working group. The minister, I know, has raised it with her colleagues at their forums, and there seems to be quite a bit of support for the federal government to have some sort of unit.

It could do a number of things. As I indicated, first of all, it could ensure that the victim's perspective is considered in the development of all criminal law initiatives. So whether it's called a victims act or whether somebody's working on an extradition act, for example, we would have an opportunity to discuss any implications in that new legislation for victims of crime. If there were an opportunity to enhance the victims' interests or if it were going to impact adversely on them, we could discuss how that could be addressed also.

• 1015

The office would also be responsible for creating this network with all the provinces so we could share information, share best practices, and provide referrals where appropriate. Even today, people phone me and ask questions I can't answer. I know I have to rely on the contacts I've developed informally with my provincial counterparts. That could be better done if we had some sort of unit and we knew who those people were and they knew who we were. We could raise awareness of the fact that we can provide a great deal of information to people about the criminal justice system if we have that information at our disposal. We could develop public information materials, pamphlets, and brochures about the role of the victim within the criminal justice system.

We could also identify areas where more research is needed and ensure that research is conducted, hopefully in partnership with some of the provinces that also want to see that research done. Victim impact statements are a good example. We know there's a lot of disparity in what happens from courtroom to courtroom, but we'd really like to get a handle on what the concerns are—if it's not a bad thing for that to happen or if there are problems, and if that should lead us to different types of legislation. You really need to have some good research done.

Similarly, research should be done on how we could better enforce victim surcharge and on whether victims fail to report crimes because they're afraid of publicity or breach of privacy. All of that should be addressed. That would be one function of the unit: how to identify what research was needed.

The Chair: Before you continue, Catherine, just so colleagues know, we have about 27 minutes left now. There's a vote. For those who are interested, it's a time allocation on the Canada Labour Code bill. So I thought we'd go another 10 minutes maybe and then we'll have to break.

An hon. member: There's just time for me to ask my questions, right?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I have a point of information. The comparative study between all the countries that was just mentioned by Catherine, do we have an analysis of that in here as well?

The Chair: Has a paper been done on international comparisons, Catherine?

Ms. Catherine Kane: No.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can we ask for one?

Ms. Catherine Kane: The United Nations Expert Group on the Victims of Crime tabled in April at the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice the manual and guide for policy-makers on the implementation of the declaration. It isn't so much an analysis of what every other country has done, but it may be of interest to the committee if I can get copies of that.

The Chair: Okay, that would be helpful. Thanks.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, that would be very helpful.

Ms. Catherine Kane: It's sometimes a bit misleading to look at the legislation of other countries, because their constitutional make-up is so different.

The Chair: So Catherine, you were in the middle of an answer. Do you remember where you were?

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes, it was about what the office could do.

The office could also ensure that we have an ability to consult with victim advocates, the bar, academics, and others on an ongoing basis regarding emerging issues and concerns. The office would also be the centre of expertise for our participation in the international initiatives, such as the UN expert committee. And we would be able to liaise with all the other initiatives that are addressing victim issues, although they may not be calling them victim issues—for example, sentencing reform, restorative justice initiatives, and initiatives for children—so we would have that capacity to make sure we make all the necessary links.

Also, we'd like to expand the web site, as I mentioned earlier. That's the wave of the future in terms of providing information, maybe not to victims of crime directly but to those people who are liaising with victims. If they didn't have information at their disposal, they could use that site and others to try to track down what they need.

We could develop public information materials and also try to increase awareness about the Canadian statement of basic principles and the existing legislative provisions.

Then the office could also be used to ensure we're supporting provincial initiatives and vice versa, so that we know what's happening in all the other jurisdictions. We could continue to try to help the directors of victims services meet among themselves from time to time so they could share information about what's happening in their own jurisdictions and how they're addressing certain issues.

• 1020

I see that if we are able to establish this unit, that will just be the tip of the iceberg, as the mandate will increase. If we have one, there will be no end to the issues that the office could address.

The Chair: Go ahead, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: On another issue, you mentioned the B.C. victims. I'm quite familiar with that because I had a lot to do with putting that together, and I know it is a good act. What in your opinion are the barriers in the way of the federal government basically taking the good points out of the various provincial legislation to try to make national standards?

Take an issue like the victim impact statement. One of my own pet peeves is that the victim does not have the ability to dictate how that should be presented. It's up to the court as to whether or not it should be read in. I feel it should be up to the victim to make that decision.

Is there any mechanism that the federal government could use to set a standard to say that this is the way right across the country that a victim impact statement shall be entered?

Ms. Catherine Kane: Because the victim impact statement provision is in the Criminal Code now, the mechanism to establish how a victim impact statement is made, if changes were to be made to the victim impact statement, would be in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: In other words, federally you could tell the provinces and the courts that they must give the victim the option to provide it orally?

Ms. Catherine Kane: That could be a possible amendment. Usually we consult with the provinces when we craft Criminal Code amendments, because they can provide good information about the impact of that type of provision. The way it's crafted now gives them the option of setting out a designated program that says it's a written statement or a form to fill in or whatever, and they have their own rationale for their own designated programs.

There may be some resistance to a provision that permits the victim to dictate how they want to provide the victim impact statement, but maybe that's a question you can put to some of the provincial people when they appear. Certainly that's one issue, though, that could be the subject of a Criminal Code amendment.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks a lot, Chuck.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Ms. Kane, thank you for coming here today. I have a few questions for you. You have already answered some of them, actually. In your opinion, does current federal legislation—I'm speaking of the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act, and so on—respond to the needs and expectations of crime victims?

[English]

Ms. Catherine Kane: Based on my discussions with various victims and victim advocates, I know that they don't meet their expectations. I'm sure many of them will tell you that. They have concerns about what happens in practice rather than what's written in the law.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So, it's more a question of practice than the way legislation is written.

[English]

Ms. Catherine Kane: Often it is.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Earlier you mentioned constitutional make-up. Canada really has a problem in this area. Aren't you afraid that setting up a federal program to help crime victims could duplicate the work already being done by some very effective agencies that already exist in a number of provinces?

[English]

Ms. Catherine Kane: Certainly there's no intention on the part of the Department of Justice to set up any program that would duplicate an existing provincial program. It's been very difficult for the provinces to maintain the programs that they have because they're often operating under very strict budgets.

The federal government hasn't contributed financially to those programs in almost ten years and we still don't have any funds available to do that, so we don't want to duplicate any programs. In fact, we're not talking right now about programs per se, we're talking about complementing what the provinces do and facilitating their ability to provide their own services by enabling them to share information or for us to be able to provide more information to them that they would then use in the delivery of their own programs and services.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: We're talking about victims' rights and national standards. However, if I remember my constitutional law correctly, the administration of justice is a provincial area of jurisdiction.

• 1025

How can we define the federal government's role and that of the provincial government, bearing in mind that administration of justice is a provincial area of jurisdiction?

[English]

Ms. Catherine Kane: As I said initially, the administration of justice is generally provincial. The enforcement of the law, prosecution of offences, and generally the delivery of victim services is a matter of provincial responsibility.

So of course when you talk about national standards, many of the provinces are not very receptive to that notion because they know what they can deliver within their own jurisdiction. Many of them have done victim needs types of studies and they feel that what they have developed under their own legislation was in response to the needs of their own jurisdiction.

It would be very difficult for the federal government to enact any sort of legislation that imposed national standards on the provinces because of the constitutional division of powers.

When I responded to Mr. Cadman's question about victim impact statements...that is something that can be in the Criminal Code because it's a matter of basically criminal procedure. And sentencing is a federal responsibility.

When we talk about services, I think it would be impossible for the federal government to have legislation that dictated to a province that they should provide a particular service to a victim.

We attempted to have minimum national standards in the compensation area by virtue of the cost-sharing agreement for criminal injuries compensation. There were about eight or nine requirements that provincial legislation had to adhere to in order to get that cost-sharing, but despite those minimum standards, there's still a huge variation in those programs.

Without an enormous amount of money to facilitate the provinces' ability to deliver a particular service, there wouldn't be any ability to demand that a particular service be provided in a province to a victim.

But despite all that, I think there is a great deal of common ground among provincial services. Many of them are quite similar in the services they provide.

The Chair: I think we have to go. Everybody's getting a little antsy about the vote. We're going to have to go over there.

Ms. Kane, I don't mean to put you on the spot. We have a delegation of Bulgarian parliamentarians coming at 11 a.m., after the vote. I don't want to put you on the spot, but would you be available Thursday at about 10.30 a.m.?

Ms. Catherine Kane: Sure.

The Chair: Could you come back?

Ms. Catherine Kane: Sure.

The Chair: We're having the people from B.C. on Thursday morning, and I suspect you all want to continue with Catherine's presentation. She had a lot of information for us. Also, Catherine and I and others from the justice department met last week. She has agreed to informally be a liaison for us so that we can continue to gather information and she can give some support to our staff as well. So Catherine is going to be around for the long haul.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll rise now and come back here at 11 a.m. The meeting is adjourned.