Stronger Victims' Rights and Restitution Support

Summary#

This bill would expand victims’ rights in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and set a federal plan to put those rights into practice. It makes key information automatic for victims, adds a right to access support services, and strengthens reparations and restitution enforcement. It also requires national training, a public awareness campaign, and a federal implementation framework with reports to Parliament.

• Makes victim information rights automatic, not only “on request” (Clauses 1–3).
• Adds a right to access legal, social, medical, and psychological services suited to victims’ needs (Clause 4).
• Replaces “Restitution” with a broader “Right to Reparations,” including access to restorative justice and court consideration of restitution (Clause 5).
• Guarantees assistance to enter and enforce restitution orders (Clause 6).
• Requires national training for justice system staff and periodic updates (Clause 9).
• Orders a federal implementation framework with minimum service standards, a public awareness campaign, stronger victim participation in sentencing and parole, and measures to strengthen the Federal Ombudsperson (Part 2 Contents (3)(a)–(i)).

What it means for you#

• Households — victims and families: You would receive key information about the justice system, the case, and the offender automatically, without having to ask (Clauses 1–3). You would have a right to access support services that fit your needs (legal, social, medical, psychological) (Clause 4). If you have a restitution order, you would have a right to assistance to file and enforce it (Clause 6). You could have more structured chances to speak at sentencing and during parole processes under the framework (Part 2 Contents (3)(g), (f)).
• Workers — justice system employees (federal): You would have to complete training on victims’ rights within 3 months of starting and at least every 3 years after; current employees must be trained within 1 year after the section takes effect (Clause 9(4); Transitional Provision). Training content must be developed within 180 days and reviewed at least every 3 years (Clause 9(1)–(3)).
• Federal agencies (e.g., police, corrections, parole, prosecutions): You would need procedures to provide information to victims without request, support restitution enforcement, and ensure staff training on schedule (Clauses 1–3, 6, 9). Complaints would go to an authority designated by the Governor in Council (Clause 8).
• Provinces and territories: The Minister must make federal training available to your employees; the framework must be developed in consultation with you (Clause 9(5); Part 2 Consultation (2)). The framework must set minimum standards for support services and include remedies when rights are not upheld, which could affect provincial programs, subject to constitutional roles (Part 2 Contents (3)(b), (c)).
• Service providers (legal aid, social, health, psychological): Demand may rise due to the new right to access services and a national public awareness campaign (Clause 4; Part 2 Contents (3)(c), (d)).
• Offenders and accused persons: Courts must continue to consider restitution; access to restorative justice may expand (Clause 5). The bill also states application must not reduce procedural fairness or access to justice, which protects fair-trial rights (Clause 7).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriation or funding amounts are specified in the bill (All Parts).
• New duties likely requiring resources include: developing and delivering training within 180 days and on a 3-year cycle; training all federal justice employees within the set timelines; and making training available to provinces (Clause 9).
• Developing the implementation framework, running a national public awareness campaign, consulting stakeholders, and setting minimum service standards will require staff time and operational spending; no dollar figures are stated (Part 2 Contents (3)(c), (d)).
• Proactive victim information-sharing, restitution enforcement assistance, and complaint handling may increase workloads at federal agencies; amounts not provided (Clauses 1–3, 6, 8).
• Federal reporting to Parliament at 1 year and a 5-year effectiveness report will have administrative costs; no amounts stated (Part 2 Tabling; Report).

Proponents' View#

• Automatic information lowers barriers for victims who may not know what to ask or when, making rights real in practice (Clauses 1–3).
• A clear right to access legal, social, medical, and psychological services, plus minimum national standards, can improve support quality and consistency across Canada (Clause 4; Part 2 Contents (3)(c)).
• Widening “restitution” to a broader “Right to Reparations,” including restorative justice, gives more paths to address harm while keeping court restitution in view (Clause 5).
• Guaranteed assistance to register and enforce restitution orders aims to reduce unpaid orders and improve compliance (assumption; Clause 6).
• Mandatory, recurring training and a national public awareness campaign can standardize delivery of victims’ rights and raise public knowledge (Clause 9; Part 2 Contents (3)(d)).
• Strengthening the Federal Ombudsperson’s independence and requiring reports to Parliament add oversight and accountability (Part 2 Contents (3)(h); Tabling; Report).

Opponents' View#

• Unfunded mandates: The bill creates new duties (training, proactive information, awareness campaign, enforcement assistance) without funding details, which may strain agency budgets or divert resources (Clauses 1–3, 6, 9; Part 2 Contents (3)(d)). Data on costs is unavailable.
• Federal–provincial tensions: Minimum service standards and other framework elements could pressure provincial systems that deliver most victim services, raising jurisdictional or cost concerns (Part 2 Contents (3)(a)–(c)). This assumes provincial uptake.
• Complaint process change: Routing complaints to an authority designated by the Governor in Council could reduce access to multiple oversight bodies and centralize control compared to “any authority” under current law (Clause 8).
• Privacy and safety risks: Proactive information-sharing may risk disclosure errors; although the Act must be applied to avoid endangering safety and protect procedural fairness, implementation may be complex (Clauses 1–3; Clause 7; Section 20 context).
• Expectations vs. remedies: The framework must describe remedies when rights are not upheld, but the bill itself does not create new court remedies; victims may still face limits in enforcing rights (Part 2 Contents (3)(b)).
• Tight timelines: Developing training within 180 days and a full implementation framework within 1 year of Royal Assent may be hard for agencies to meet while maintaining ongoing operations (Clause 9(1); Part 2 Tabling).