Bill 32 - The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act

 On Monday April 11 I spoke at Second Reading to Bill 32 - The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act.  My comments are below: 

Bill 32–The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act

 

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I speak to Bill 32, the victims of crime amend­ment act.

      First of all, it's a positive step forward to be able to provide family members of the victims with support and with compensation. Manitoba Liberals will sup­port this bill. We also see it as positive that there's an expansion of con­di­tions for Legal Aid help for victims of sexual assault to help protect their personal infor­ma­tion and personal privacy and make sure they're well-represented in court cases.

      I think it's im­por­tant to acknowl­edge that family victim–members–family members of a victim can be affected in a major, major way. If a victim is killed, there may be a loss of family income, a loss of family support, loss of a loved one. If it is a father or a mother or parent, then the child or teenager may lose the op­por­tun­ity to be able to attend post-secondary edu­ca­tion because of the lack of the income from the parent.

      And this is clearly some­thing that needs to be addressed. Post-secondary edu­ca­tion may not be a right, but it is certainly that every child should have the potential for access to, regardless of their back­ground, and we know that right now, that it is pro­portionate of children who are–Indigenous are not even graduating from high school and that ad­di­tional supports in this area are clearly needed.

      If the victim is disabled, there can be a loss of family income; there can be a need for the family to spend a lot of time looking after a disabled victim. And clearly, this can have a very, very large impact on a family and the well-being of a family.

      Now, this bill provides compensation or support for a spouse or common-law partner of a victim or a parent or child or sibling of a victim. And it is im­por­tant that the needs and the well-being of all are fully addressed. And that's why we support this legis­lation.

      We see that there are a number of areas where there are specific concerns or con­sid­era­tions. It is im­por­tant to be able to achieve equity and fairness. It is im­por­tant that this is not based on the same sort of fabric as worker's compensation. That is that if the victim was wealthier, had a higher income, that there is more support provided to the family of the victim.

      We need to make sure that a child in a family which is poor or on low income has that support to be able to finish their edu­ca­tion and attend post-secondary edu­ca­tion, if they so desire. That support actually may be greater in some instances where a–it is a family where there is a low income and where there is a family with a much higher income. And this needs to be taken into account. There's nothing specific in the bill which would require that or man­date it; there's an ex­pect­a­tion of equity or justice, but actually delivering that is im­por­tant, and that's why I'm talking about these matters.

      I need to indicate that, based on my ex­per­ience, that it is going to be very im­por­tant that there not be inequities based on racial or ethnic back­ground. I've had ex­per­ience trying to help an individual who is Indigenous and autistic on the Asperger scale, and for a whole variety of reasons he has had an extra­ordin­ary and inordinate dif­fi­cul­ties in getting fairness and justice even when he has been victimized, and there's a variety of reasons for that. But it's going to be very im­por­tant that we have situations where individuals who are victims of crimes are supported and receive compensation.

      And, you know, we can see that it is im­por­tant that there are crimes–there can be arson or a homi­cide–where there is not necessarily a person convicted because the individual who's the perpetrator may not be found, but the people who are affected may still be 'dratamatically' affected.

      And so ensuring that individuals who are victims of crimes can be helped and supported and com­pensated–it is a broad question. It is not just spe­cific­ally for cases where there is a conviction. And in this context it's going to be im­por­tant that the–this legis­lation work together with restorative justice. In re­stora­tive justice you may have a crime which is clearly identified, that there is a victim and a perpetrator who are brought together. There may be a con­ver­sa­tion and under­standing. Because that person is the victim is involved in a restorative justice program should not mean that they don't get access to compensation. That is clearly im­por­tant that person who is a victim who goes through restorative justice is not denied com­pensation, and there are several reasons for that.

      It is just where you have a clearly identified victim and a perpetrator and you're working in restorative justice approach. Can you imagine what would happen if you didn't allow compensation for victims when they were going through a restorative justice approach? It would create a bias, a–an in­centive, a financial incentive, for people to go to court instead of to go to restorative justice if you didn't pro­vide compensation to individuals who have or are part of a process of restorative justice.

      And it's not clear yet from the ex­per­ience to date because we're still–from the minister's remarks–not given an adequate account of what the ex­per­ience has been except we know that there has been less com­pensation handed out than was expected. But what is clear is that we do need to have a process which is fair and which accommodates or acknowledges people who are victims under a variety of circum­stances.

      In the case of Candace House, I think it is going to be im­por­tant and hopefully we will have a presenter who've ex­per­ience at Candace House helping victims who will present at com­mit­tee and we can have a dialogue on this. Clearly, in the case of Candace, who was a victim of a crime, this crime went many, many years before it was resolved, before the likely in­dividual respon­si­ble was identified and, in fact, it is an example of why it's going to be really im­por­tant to have compensation even when you don't have a con­viction because, clearly, it was a crime and the victims need compensation.

      So, Madam Speaker, this is im­por­tant legis­lation. It takes us a step forward. I'm looking forward to the discussion at the com­mit­tee stage. I think it's going to be very im­por­tant to have a variety of inputs from people not only who've ex­per­ience at Campbell House but–or Candace House, but also people who have had a variety of experiences with the justice system so that we have comments which will enable this bill not only to move forward, but to be practically useful and helpful to not only victims of crime but to their family members who, in many instances, have been very severely affected by the crime itself.

      With those words, I'll let others speak.

      Thank you, merci, miigwech, dyakuyu.