Bill C-32 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Victims Bill of Rights Act
An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 3, 2014
- Debated in principleJune 20, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 23, 2015
- Passed the second chamberApril 21, 2015
- Became lawApril 22, 2015
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 3 April 2014, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of introduced Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts (Victims Bill of Rights Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-32 enacts the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which specifies that victims of crime have the following rights: (a) the right to information about the criminal justice system, the programs and services that are available to victims of crime and the complaint procedures that are available to them when their rights have been infringed or denied; (b) the right to information about the status of the investigation and the criminal proceedings, as well as information about reviews while the offender is subject to the corrections process, or about hearings after the accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or u…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
66% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (20,172 words introduced, 15,218 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core rights to information, protection, participation and restitution were retained with only minor wording tweaks, but two-thirds of the text was revised or replaced during passage. The main substantive addition was a new parliamentary review clause five years after coming into force.
- Preamble was expanded to include respect for dignity.
Before: “Whereas victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect;”
After: “Whereas victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, including respect for their dignity;”
- New parliamentary review provision added after section 2.
After: “Five years after section 2 comes into force, a committee of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights enacted by that section.”
- Wording on party status clarified to cover both granting and removing status.
Before: “Nothing in this Act is to be construed as granting any victim or individual acting on behalf of a victim the status as a party, intervenor or observer in any proceedings.”
After: “Nothing in this Act is to be construed as granting to, or removing from, any victim or any individual acting on behalf of a victim the status of party, intervenor or observer in any proceedings.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill repeatedly qualifies rights with subjective phrases such as 'appropriate authorities', 'reasonable and necessary' and 'in the interest of the proper administration of justice'. These terms, plus broad interpretive clauses, leave core obligations open to case-by-case debate rather than fixed rules.
Open to argument
“the right to have their security and privacy considered by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system”
Uses undefined 'appropriate authorities' and the subjective verb 'considered' without measurable standard.“if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice”
Purely subjective 'opinion' test tied to an undefined collective interest.
Clear-cut
“This Act does not apply in respect of offences that are service offences, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act”
Explicit statutory carve-out with cross-reference to a defined term.“the investigation of the offence is deemed to begin at the time of the reporting”
Bright-line temporal rule that removes discretion on start date.
Discretion. Ministers, police, prosecutors, judges and the Parole Board retain wide latitude to decide what measures are 'reasonable and necessary', whether publication orders serve 'the proper administration of justice', and how to balance victim rights against listed institutional interests.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated use of subjective standards such as 'appropriate authorities' and 'proper administration of justice' engages section 7 Charter vagueness and overbreadth arguments.
Disputing a charge under it. Any alleged breach turns on whether an official formed a permissible 'opinion' or chose measures that were 'reasonable and necessary', both of which are readily disputed on the facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The CVBR has influenced federal agency practices, prompted some policy adjustments, and received quasi-constitutional recognition in courts, but official progress reports conclude its core objectives of enforceable rights and consistent implementation remain largely unfulfilled after a decade. Multiple reviews highlight limited remedies for violations, sporadic application, and no implementation of key recommendations for stronger enforcement.
- Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime 10-year Progress Report (2026)reviewWhile some progress occurred in resources and case law, rights remain largely symbolic with limited enforceability; none of the 15 recommendations from the 5-year report were implemented, and 24 new recommendations were issued.
- Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime 5-year Progress Report (2020)reviewObjectives set out in the Act have not been met; implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent, falling far short of delivering real, enforceable rights to victims.
- Evaluation of PPSC activities resulting from funding to implement the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (2021)evaluationDepartmental evaluation of Public Prosecution Service of Canada implementation activities under the CVBR funding.
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study (2022)reviewParliamentary review resulting in 'Improving Support for Victims of Crime' report with all-party support for improvements, though stakeholders noted the review's limited scope.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.