Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I begin speaking on the supply motion by congratulating my colleague from Fraser Valley West for introducing the victim's bill of rights. It is certainly a pleasure to see something concrete happening in the House regarding victims' rights.
Not all victims are the result of murder. Many victims we find in Canadian society are people who have found themselves victimized through assault, attacks or other offences. Sometimes these victims go unnoticed and unheard.
What we are concerned about with this victims' bill of rights is that there is a process and a procedure to make sure people who find themselves victimized by offenders have some recourse, some vehicle for having their story heard and their concerns addressed.
Not that I have ever wanted to but simply because of the position I found myself in I have ended up speaking to over 20 parents of murdered children. Their stories vary from occasion and from location. For the most part what I hear from the parents of children who have been murdered is they feel when they enter the court system they are being revictimized. I also hear that from parents or from assault victims who find themselves getting entangled in a misunderstanding between the federal jurisdiction over creating the law and the provincial jurisdiction over administering the law.
Caught in this conflict, these victims really feel they are being victimized for a second or third time when they enter the court process.
Two aspects of this victim's bill of rights try to deal with a couple of problems that arise. One is section 4, which asks that victims be informed in a timely fashion of the details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the defence.
That is a fair request. Anybody who has been victimized whether from a sexual assault, assault or in the worst cases a murder has a right to be part of the process. They have a right to know when there is an intention to downgrade a charge.
A good number of the people who find themselves victimized go to court anticipating or expecting a first degree murder conviction for the criminal if that is what the criminal is charged with. They come away feeling very distraught when that has been downgraded either to second degree or to manslaughter.
When people go to court, having been victimized from a sexual assault, and find out that charge can be downgraded through a plea bargain to make sure the offender does get convicted, they may downgrade the seriousness of the assault.
Oftentimes because the victims or the families of the victims do not understand the process they feel cheated. If they were brought into the process, if they were brought into the discussions on why plea bargaining was being considered, why the need to look at downgrading the charge to get a conviction, perhaps they would feel less victimized the second or third time.
Another concern of mine is that victims should be looked after, that there should be some vehicle in our system that when there are people who are victimized through no fault of their own, there is some compensation or some accounting that they, too, need to be cared for.
The case that comes to mind is the case of a young 14-year old girl who was kidnapped out of a schoolyard after school by an older man and taken in his truck. The intent was considered when she escaped partially dressed. The offender's truck got stuck in the mud. While he was trying to deal with getting his truck unstuck she was able to get out of the vehicle and escape partially dressed. His intentions, therefore, were quite clear.
(1510)
The parents of that child realized that in order to heal completely this child needed to have counselling. They went to various agencies to see what kind of counselling she could receive. They were told they had to make an application to victim's aid and that perhaps the money for the counselling would be available in three to four months.
Those parents realized that the counselling and healing had to start immediately. This 14-year old girl could not wait three or four months before dealing with what had happened to her. However, they were not a family of wealth and it took everything they had to find the financial resources to make sure that their daughter did not suffer long term consequences from this event.
We then look at the offenders who have all of the counselling and treatment provided for them, and the victims are left trying to deal with their problems on their own. That concerns me.
Another part of this victims' bill of rights which has to be looked at is the issue of the crown and the police notifying the victims why charges were not laid if that is the decision of the crown or the police.
One case more than any other brings that to my mind. Clifford Olson on New Year's Day in 1981 picked up a 16-year old girl, Kim Werbecky, and raped her repeatedly over a 12-hour period. She eventually escaped and reported the crime to the police, who arrested and charged Clifford Olson. However, the crown did not proceed with charges because she was a prostitute. It felt she would be viewed as a liar and a tramp and was not to be believed. Thus Olson was released.
At the time of his release Olson had already murdered one child and he would go on to murder another 10 children. It was not until two years ago that Kim Werbecky finally found out why charges did not proceed. She never had a chance to state her position or give her side of the story.
It is extremely important that the crown and the police bring victims into the discussions. I know one individual living in my community who is very good about dealing with not only the victims but the victim's family, of talking to them of what the possibilities are, of where this case might go, of what would be expected of them and of the pain, suffering and stress they would feel.
He takes it upon himself to deal with the realities of victims having to go through the legal system. He helps to reduce the trauma for these victims by including them in discussions before the trial and before the court case is heard. He includes them in plea bargaining, what it is all about and where it will take them.
It is unfortunate that is left to the discretion of the crown. Not all crowns are as good as this individual at bringing the victims into the process. It should not be left to the individual. It should be the rule and not the exception. Unfortunately we find that it is the exception. Most crowns are busy, have large caseloads and literally cannot be bothered to look at the whole aspect of victims when they are going through the court system.
I do not think most Canadians realize the crown is there to assume the responsibility of the victim. Society does not believe it is only the victim who has been victimized but society as a whole. Therefore the crown, on behalf of the individual, appears before the courts to get some justice and restitution.
I do not think most Canadians realize the crown is really there on their behalf. They need to be brought more into the system with the crown so they appreciate and understand that they are working together on this, that the crown is actually working on their behalf.
(1515 )
Victims and their families must have a statutory right to be informed about what is happening. It should not be left to the discretion of the crown or to the discretion of the attorney general. Ministers of justice and attorneys general change often. They are not standard established positions. The individuals change with the will of the people and sometimes reflect how the Criminal Code is applied.
It is very important that victims rights be written into statute so changes in government do not affect how they are dealt with.
I congratulate my colleague for his efforts on behalf of the victims in society.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member and her party, as did the Minister of Justice today, for using their opposition day correctly and positively toward the service of all Canadians with this important topic of victims rights. In the red book we promised Canada safer streets, safer communities, a better and fairer society.
The hon. members of the Reform Party spoke of two aspects of victims rights. One aspect is to have tougher legislation. The other aspect refers to counselling, the benefits criminals have through legal aid, mental health services or what other institutions there might be available. Reformers would make these services available to the victim as well, including counselling, support services, financial assistance if required, the opportunity to prepare impact statements and so on.
How far would the hon. member take that suggestion in this legislation? Who would pay for such services?
I am pleased to support the efforts they are putting forward today.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, there is an organization in our government, the correctional investigator, which listens to the complaints of convicted individuals in the penitentiaries. It hears complaints about the kind of food they get, the kind of cells they are in, whether they get to smoke.
I would suggest that is a very good start. Take the resources for that agency and redefine it to provide services for victims. I do not feel that people who have been charged, convicted and sentenced to incarceration have any right to criticize or complain about the kind of food or the kind of health care they get. They get 24-hour health services which no other Canadian in the country gets, yet some of them complain about it. They complain about the way they are shuttled from cell to cell or where they are moved.
The resources that go into that agency, I believe it is a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, would provide a very good start to funding the cause of victims rights.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the motion on the issue of victims rights.
Although as a society we have an obligation to protect the rights of the accused and the rights of the convicted, we also need to establish and safeguard the rights of all victims and their families.
If an occasion should arise where the rights of the victim and the rights of the perpetrator are in conflict, the resolution of that conflict should be very easy: it should be in favour of the victim. I sincerely believe this can be done without compromising our fine tradition of rights and freedoms.
The call for better victims rights is not a new one. In 1981 a federal-provincial task force was struck to examine the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The task force reported in 1983 with suggestions to provide information to victims, develop victims rights, develop victim services, introduce victim impact statements and compensate losses where appropriate. I agree with all of these proposals. However, I do not agree with its conclusion that many proposed victims rights ``were not appropriate to be included in the criminal law''. Since that time some progress has been made.
(1520)
In 1988, Bill C-89 amended the Criminal Code to allow courts to consider victim impact statements during sentencing. Recent amendments which will soon come into force will require courts to consider any properly prepared impact statement. Similar changes have been made to the Young Offenders Act and to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Provisions have been placed in the Criminal Code regarding restitution. In section 727.9 of the Criminal Code a victim fine surcharge has been introduced, not to exceed 15 per cent of any fine levied. Unfortunately, proceeds go to the crown and not directly to the victim. Under section 725 of the Criminal Code a court can order compensation to a victim. However, application must be made by the victim who would need to seek a civil judgment to enforce the order and the accused would not pay the amount ordered.
It is progress, but it is not enough. It is not sufficient for the federal government to point to the provinces and suggest that the administration of justice is a provincial matter. It is not good enough that changes on these matters are done haphazardly and at a snail's pace. It is certainly not good enough to suggest further patience by those whose lives have been shattered as victims of crime.
The federal government has a clear responsibility to set the protection of victims as a national priority. I believe this motion can achieve that objective.
We can accomplish our objectives by including the rights of victims in a preamble to the Criminal Code. On matters which
traditionally fall within the scope of the provinces, this preamble should state that the administration of the law, as established in the Criminal Code, specifies the rights of victims.
There are five principles which should be included in a statement of victims rights. First, victims should be kept informed of the criminal investigations, court proceedings and parole applications being undertaken in respect of criminal action perpetrated against them or their families. These people need to know the process. They need to be informed of what is going on. Victims of crime are not an impediment to court proceedings, the lawyers and others who administer the law. They are the reason for it and should benefit from it.
Second, victims should be financially compensated for personal injury or financial and all other forms of loss which result from criminal actions against them or their families. They should not have to make a separate application to the court, nor be required to obtain a civil enforcement order. The thought that a victim must in essence sue an individual convicted of a crime against them to obtain restitution is beyond comprehension.
Third, an individual convicted of committing a property crime should have a portion of their fine or labour in prison go to providing restitution to the victim. Innocent bystanders should not have to absorb the cost of another's deviant behaviour.
Fourth, victims should have the unconditional right to have their impact statements heard by the courts and parole boards. The rules and processes surrounding this procedure should be simple and should facilitate, not impede such action.
Fifth, the statement of principle should call for the administration of justice under the Criminal Code by the provinces in a manner which obliges them to inform victims of the services available to them, including possible legal recourse.
The intent of the motion before us is to further protect the rights of victims who are all too often forgotten by the justice system, which is why I will support the motion today. I will carefully watch the progress of the minister and the committee. I hope they find merit in my suggestion to include the bill of rights in a preamble to the Criminal Code.
I am not a lawyer, a judge or a learned legal scholar. I do not know the intricacies of the law. But I am a father, a husband and a concerned citizen. As parliamentarians we have an obligation to continue the progress of the last few years, to set a national standard and an example to protect and assist all victims of crime.
(1525)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear members opposite support this kind of endeavour. I have always said that to get a national victims bill of rights it must transcend party lines. Individual members of Parliament must support the initiative.
I have several questions. The first is related to the legal industry in Canada. I have quote upon quote of what the legal industry, in particular lawyers and judges, thinks of victims in this country. I will cite a couple of examples.
Recently in the Bedford provincial court in Nova Scotia Judge Patrick Curran stated: ``I am not entirely happy with them''. He was referring to victim impact statements. ``For the most part I do not think they make an awful lot of difference''. That is the indifference I find in the legal system.
This morning I quoted Russ Chamberlain which I will do again for my colleague opposite. Mr. Chamberlain is a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver who said that crime victims want an eye for an eye, that they want someone else to fix their ``petty problems'', and that their pitch for personal vengeance can ``improperly'' affect a jury's verdict. He said: ``Victim impact statements are just venting the spleen and do not serve justice and should be outlawed, banned completely''.
We could go through a litany of quotes from lawyers and judges in this country on victims who seem to be secondary in the process. They seem to be a royal pain to most of these people.
Would the member comment on how the House could pass a national victims bill of rights when much of the problem lies with the legal industry whose members are intent on going their own way without the legislators, without the input from victims and certainly without the guidance from the national House of Commons.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West which may be a first and perhaps a last. I do not agree with the opinions of the legal people he quoted.
Many of the lawyers and judges I have talked to who operate in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka share the feelings I have just expressed about the concern toward victims and their rights.
The member asked how we should go about this. The House of Commons has to set the national standard. My suggestion is that it be placed in the preamble of the Criminal Code. However, I suspect the justice committee will look at many options. The preamble should clearly state the national will. That is what this Parliament is all about, stating the national will through its elected representatives.
The preamble should state that we believe the rights of victims are important, that they are of primary concern to us as a country, that they are of primary concern to us as parliamentarians. We want to ensure that when people look to the Criminal Code for guidance, they will find the rights of victims in the code.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this motion on victims rights.
We have heard the expression of support for the motion which has been put forward by the Minister of Justice. It is his personal intention to support the motion. Other members of the House will no doubt do likewise. It is the stated position of the minister to bring forward in a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers a proposal for the reaffirmation of the principles either as have been previously enunciated or as can be improved upon by the suggestions made by a number of the members of the House.
(1530)
The original principles governing the principles of justice for victims of crime were originally set forward in 1988. They were as follows.
Victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and with respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum of necessary inconvenience from their involvement with the criminal justice system.
Victims should receive through formal and informal procedures prompt and fair redress for the harm which they have suffered. Information regarding the remedies and mechanisms to obtain them should be made available to the victims. Information should be made available to the victims about their participation in criminal proceedings and the scheduling, progress and ultimate disposition of the proceedings.
Where appropriate the views and concerns of victims should be ascertained and assistance provided throughout the criminal process. Where the personal interests of the victim are affected, the views or concerns of the victim should be brought to the attention of the court where appropriate and consistent with criminal law and procedure.
Measures should also be taken when necessary to ensure the safety of victims and their families and protect them from intimidation and retaliation. Enhanced training should be made available to sensitize criminal justice personnel to the needs and concerns of victims and guidelines developed where appropriate for this purpose.
Victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other relevant assistance so that they might continue to receive the necessary medical, psychological and social assistance through existing programs and services.
Victims should report the crime and co-operate with law enforcement authorities.
These are the principles that were agreed upon by the federal and provincial ministers responsible for criminal justice.
Since 1988 and in an effort to bring these principles into reality, the federal government has enacted a number of pieces of legislation to enhance the role of the victims within the criminal procedure of the land and throughout the process so that they will indeed not be victimized twice but rather will feel as much as possible a part of the process.
In addition to federal action, provincial governments across the land which have the constitutional authority for the administration of justice and the constitutional duty to administer justice have introduced in a number of cases provincial statutes dealing specifically with victims of crime and how they are dealt with throughout the process of the administration of justice. In addition to that, a number of programs have been put forward by provincial governments across this land in conjunction with communities to better enhance and protect victims throughout the criminal justice procedure.
In my own community of Prince Albert, funding from the provincial level is made available to the community. The community working in conjunction with the police and the justice system has developed a program to better assist victims of crime through the court procedure and subsequent to it.
All across the country steps like this are being taken. More public awareness is being focused on the needs of the victims by victims groups and communities. Certainly this field is evolving. We all want to do our part at the federal level, at the provincial level, at the municipal level, at the community level and at the individual level to assist this evolution. In these times of very tight resources for all levels of government while it is difficult to do immediately all we would like to do, the process which is in place to enhance the role of victims, to protect victims of crime and to ensure their healing as much as possible in a timely fashion will continue.
(1535)
In addition to assisting victims of crime, perhaps some of the best ways to ensure a reduction in victimization is with the co-operation of all levels of government to look more seriously at the prevention of crime.
First would be looking at and eradicating the social conditions which lead to crime. More and more people and communities are turning to early intervention in the lives of young people to work with them before they end up in conflict with the law and start down the path to a life of crime. This is a very productive form of prevention which in the long run will reduce the number of victims within our society.
In addition, it is important to introduce and pass appropriate pieces of criminal justice legislation which will make it very clear to the population what types of behaviour are not to be tolerated. The types of behaviour which are not to be tolerated must be given appropriate negative sanctions so that crime can be deterred.
But sadly, crimes are committed. We need to deal with victims of crime to ensure their involvement with the justice system, while it can never be painless or easy, is made as easy as possible in some sense. The government has enacted a number of very specific provisions which deal with victims of crime and their involvement with the justice system.
For instance, amendments have been put forward to section 745 of the Criminal Code. When there is a section 745 application, victim impact statements will be considered. This is a positive step in the right direction. Both the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act now require that victim impact statements where available be heard by the courts. This is yet another positive development. In some cases it is appropriate to have the identity of victims of crime protected throughout a criminal proceeding. Those amendments have been brought forward.
Power has been given to police for instance in the gun control legislation, under appropriate circumstances to remove firearms from the house of an individual who has shown violent behaviour or who has threatened individuals. Thus, the likelihood of harm from firearms would be reduced. This also assists the victims of crime.
The department is also reviewing a number of other areas in which to assist victims of crime such as when the therapeutic records of victims of crime would be released to the courts.
All of these areas have been looked at, introduced or are under active review by the department. It is important that we cannot pick and choose remedies we want to bring forward to assist victims of crime. We need to support provisions such as gun control which victims groups across the country want and applaud.
Although it may be tough, we cannot back away from assisting the victims of crime. Whether it is introducing the appropriate criminal justice statutes, whether it is establishing the proper prevention programs or whether it is establishing a victims bill of rights which would more clearly delineate how victims are dealt with in the justice system, all these issues need to be dealt with.
(1540 )
Certainly the minister will be supporting this motion. It is imperative that all levels work together, the federal and provincial governments, and the communities through whatever means, volunteerism, et cetera to each do our part to assist victims of crime. I thank the hon. member for putting forward the motion.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the reality in this country is very different from what the Liberal Party has been putting forth. The reality is that violent crime, particularly among youth, is increasing faster than any other aspect of crime.
The Liberals promised to deal with the Young Offenders Act in a substantive and effective fashion before it became the government. Have we seen anything? Absolutely not. We have seen pabulum come through the justice department when it comes to dealing with young offenders.
I ask my hon. friend from the Liberal government to name some substantive and effective legislation the government has put forth to decrease youth and violent crime. If this is being put forth, I would like him to explain to the House why it has not decreased violent crime one iota.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the statements put forward by the hon. member that nothing has been done by the government with respect to the Young Offenders Act, I can assure the House and the people of Canada this government has taken steps to deal with the most serious of young offenders crimes.
First of all, for the most serious crimes, the penalties under the Young Offenders Act have been toughened. There is no doubt about that. It has happened.
With respect to whether or not 16 or 17 year olds will appear in adult court, the onus that used to be in place has been reversed. Now the situation is that young offenders 16 and 17 years of age will be in adult court unless they can prove they should be tried in youth court. The situation used to be the opposite. The presumption had been that 16 and 17 year olds would be tried in youth court.
In addition to that, a review of the Young Offenders Act by the justice and legal affairs committee continues. Hon. members of the Reform Party are involved in that. The committee will be visiting five regions of the country. Last week the committee completed the first leg of its journey when it visited the maritimes to hear what people thought about the Young Offenders Act with a view to making further changes.
This government is committed to hearing input from people across the country which is not the style of the members opposite. They like to do things and forget about what the people think. This government likes to listen to the people and the justice and legal affairs committee will be doing that over the next little while. It will be recommending further changes to the Young Offenders Act for consideration by the justice minister. In addition, the federal-provincial task force on young offenders, the officials and ministers, will also be making recommendations to the federal minister.
A number of very succinct and proper measures have been taken by this government. Every single time we bring forward something to assist the victims, whether it is Bill C-41, whether it is changes to section 745 or whether it is changes to the Young Offenders Act, the Reform Party votes against it.
(1545 )
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the motion concerning victims' rights tendered by the member for Fraser Valley West. I urge the Minister of Justice to create a national standard for victims of crime.
We are calling for a fundamental change in the operation of the Criminal Code. It is a natural evolution of the movement for justice system accountability and a re-examination of the primary operational goals of the criminal justice system in Canada. Victims have a right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the justice process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any victim services available.
On February 29 of this year, my colleague organized a victims' rights rally in Abbotsford, British Columbia. As I surveyed the faces in the crowd, I felt a visceral response from them, an urgent dissatisfaction with Canada's institutional response to crime and how we as society handle offenders in comparison with those innocents who are left in the offender's wake. It is clear to me that the way the criminal justice operations work does not represent mainstream Canadian values.
Constituents of mine from New Westminster-Burnaby have written to the Minister of Justice. They have submitted petitions which I have dutifully presented to the government in the House. Sadly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice do not seem to feel the same deep sense of wrong and urgency, to make the order of fundamental change that is required to assuage the community and respond to Canada's sense of what is right.
What is required is a basic rebuilding of the justice system from its fundamental pillars. Central to that change must be that the system must no longer be so offender focused. That is the old agenda of the system defenders, the Liberals and Conservatives who gave us the justice system we have today. The community is demanding that system changers come forward who have an openness to rethink and remake our response to crime.
This past while I have had the privilege of introducing several private member's bills in the House. They arise from my longstanding sensitivity to victims' issues. The message of victims has not been self-centred or full of retribution or revenge. Their concern is a search for meaning of their circumstance and a hope that changes will arise to prevent others from needlessly going through what they have experienced, that mostly came from the justice system itself, while they were in the midst of their pain and loss.
As a former officer of the court, I have heard many stories from victims. I have observed firsthand how the labyrinthine system operates and how the disconnected parts work in their compartments without a unifying mission or a mandate.
I made a promise to my constituents that I would try, among other things, to make a difference in the way victims of crime are treated, the way they are regarded and how they are positioned in law. It is time to move beyond community volunteer programs, as important as they may be, and write into the law the position of the victim from the beginning to the end.
On March 27 of this year I introduced private member's Bill C-247. I had received complaints that some persons were causing public disturbances and destroying an important part of community living, the places enjoyed by families. The victims in this case are the local communities across the country, especially for the liveability for young children. What is frustrating is that those causing the public disturbance, causing mothers to hang on to their children tightly as they pass them by and having merchants experience the social life of commerce turned into a danger zone, that these perpetrators are not controlled.
We are well aware that our local shopping malls, community centres, sports arenas and libraries are popular hangouts for youths who want to be rather negative. In particular, the most popular spot to hang out in a mall is in the food court where the action is of people traffic.
If the problem ensues and the mall security guard is forced to remove a person, a little known fact is that the person being removed is permitted by law to re-enter immediately, provided there is no resistance in the removal and no charge develops. There is nothing that the security guard can do but to continue to ask the person to leave.
Why do we have such a loophole in the Criminal Code? It is because the community as victim in this situation is not regarded as highly as the nuisance-maker and show off, the destroyer of community peace and order.
The property owner is being victimized because the Criminal Code is full of holes, the same holes that the Minister of Justice says do not exist.
(1550 )
In my riding, the New Westminster police have a storefront office in the Westminster Mall as part of their community policing program. Members of the force have told me that their hands are tied in such a situation. They cannot do a thing unless the Criminal Code is changed.
Every town in this country daily struggles with public order and millions are spent for security guards and monitoring systems
because the local community, as a victim, is not important to the government. My small bill on this matter will solve the problem for communities in that situation.
When Reform members bring forward private members' bills they are serious attempts, not media stunts. We want to make Canada a safer place in which to live. We want people to have the ability to walk the streets in safety. We want Canadians to know that their rights are being respected. Most importantly, we want to ensure that victims of crime do not become pushed to the sidelines and receive little help while the perpetrator receives most of the resources of government help.
In the previous session of this Parliament, I introduced Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge). The way the act currently stands, an offender can be released from having to pay any damages arising from assault, awarded in a civil lawsuit, if the offender claims bankruptcy.
When my Bill C-323 was before the House for second reading debate on December 8, 1996, government members were very supportive of my amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and indicated so in their speeches.
The member for Lambtom-Middlesex stated: ``This is an excellent amendment. I commend the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby for it. I would like to see the same principle applied to all categories listed in section 178, not just the assault cases''.
The member for Nickel Belt stated: ``This legislation is a clear example of a good idea whose time has come. We all know that the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has hit upon an excellent idea and a worthy amendment and we all want to see it incorporated in the law as soon as possible''.
Finally, the member for Durham stated: ``The bill presented by the member is a good one and deserves the support of the House. I would be happy to support the member in that initiative''.
The words of these members are encouraging and I hope I will be able to count on their votes when my amendment is raised in the industry committee.
Today's motion is to implement a victims' bill of rights. That is really no different in principle from moving an amendment to the bankruptcy act. Both would assist victims and both would make Canada a safer place to live.
If Liberal members chose to vote against today's motion or work to dilute it, they will be telling their constituents that victims' rights are not paramount. For I assert that the notion of equal balance between victim and offender is a mistaken one and is not supported by Canadians.
A victims' bill of rights is a good way to begin the process of the hundreds of adjustments to the system that need to be made at all levels of government so there develops a unifying theme around which the justice system can operate. Peace and community order, protecting it and restoring it on behalf of victims can be a unifying theme.
Those who are in conflict with society and affected by sanctions of the Criminal Code can be offered paths to community restoration by fulfilling the obligations of punishment in all its complexity.
I recommend a thoughtful reflection of the deeper philosophical implications of what is being brought to the House by this motion. Let there be light. Let there be some insight. The light shines in the darkness and darkness comprehends it not. May light overcome the darkness and may we become more positive system changers instead of remaining mere system defenders.
Canadians deserve better than our current justice system and today's motion is the place to start.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting his points forward.
As is currently the case, a number of provinces have put forward victims' rights legislation and have through the use of various mechanisms raised money for the provision of services to victims within provincial jurisdictions. They have utilized the victims of crime surcharge which can be placed on fines which are collected for Criminal Code offences and have raised money in that respect. They have put in place services for victims.
I believe there is room for the federal government to work with the provinces in this regard.
(1555 )
I am curious why Reform Party members, who are usually so ``let the provinces do everything and the federal government do nothing'' are suggesting that the federal government do everything. What would they do with the work that is already done by the provinces? Have they consulted with the provinces on what action the federal government would take? Have they agreement among the provinces on what action the federal government should take so that it is not imposing costs on them?
In addition, how would the Reform Party handle the costs to the system that could be imposed?
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of cost, it is a matter of priority and a social philosophy of what you see as particularly important.
We are looking beyond the volunteer status of victims' services. I have three victims' services programs running in my riding. One operates out of the RCMP detachment with a retired staff sergeant in charge. He has about 40 volunteers on his list.
In New Westminster a volunteer victim services program is attached to the police. One also operates out of the crown counsel's office. They get some grant money from time to time but basically they are run on a volunteer basis at the discretion of a justice system that goes from the top to the bottom.
We are talking about moving beyond that. It is something like the movement we had years ago when the Mothers of Drunk Drivers program became popular and reported in the news media. Those mothers began to sit in the back of courtrooms on a volunteer basis to provide pressure. Eventually the justice system ever so slowly responded and it is a different situation that we have now than 25 years ago.
What we are suggesting is that it is time to move beyond volunteer services, perhaps even look at the Constitution. Victims need status in the law and in the overall operation of the justice system. We say that as far as the responsibility of the federal government is concerned, build the law and the victims' services will come.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the victims' bill of rights motion that my hon. colleague is putting forward. It is long overdue.
This all started back in 1983-84 when the Liberal justice minister of the day said that Canadian justice was going to move away from making the victim its primary responsibility and move toward the convicted as their primary responsibility.
This has had a fundamental effect on the mindset of the justice system over the last 13 years. As a result Reform members have had to put forward legislation along the lines of that which my colleague is putting forward, a victims' bill of right. Why? Because the victims of this country have had their rights abrogated by a judicial system whose interest should be to protect them first and foremost. That is no longer the case. Countless numbers of victims have had their rights subjugated to the rights of the convicted.
Here are some pathetic examples. Imagine if you will you are person who has been raped. You have no rights whatsoever under the current justice system to know the health status of the person who raped you. You have no rights to know if he is HIV positive. You have no rights to know if he is carrying sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhoea, chlamydia and hepatitis. Those rights do not exist. This is one of the things that my colleague and we in the Reform Party wish to change.
Imagine if you will that your child has been violated by a pedophile or that a loved one of yours has been raped. Currently that rapist or pedophile can come an live right next door to you if he so chooses. That can happen. Do the victims have a right to know about this? No, they do not.
In my riding I have had a situation where a serial pedophile who raped and violated little children more than 1,000 times came to live in the neighbourhood of its victims. These victims were absolutely beside themselves with fear and abject terror.
(1600)
Why do we not have a justice system which protects these individuals from having to endure a situation of terror and fear after they have already been violated by an individual? That is fundamentally wrong and bespeaks poorly of a justice system that is meant to protect these individuals.
It is fundamental that these victims have the right to know where and when the people who perpetrated these violations on them will be and where they will live and their whereabouts. As we all know, there is no treatment for violent sexual predators. There are many attempts but there is no effective treatment. Therefore victims have a right to know where these individuals are.
The third is victims' impact statements. It must be the right of the victim to give a victim impact statement orally or in writing if they so choose. It is not a choice but it should be their right to have this. The courts must understand what it was like for that person to endure the crime perpetrated on them.
Fifth, the victim must understand what is happening in the court proceedings. They must understand what is being plea bargained away, why it is being plea bargained away, and what deals are being made between the crown and the accused's defence. It is very important for the peace of mind of the victims that they understand the whole process taking place if they are to feel justice is being done.
Sixth, it is very important that we err on the side of the protection of the individual in society at large. We have to move away from what we have said before, that the convicted will have our primary focus. The victim must be the primary responsibility of the justice system. That is simply not the case now.
I will give a true life example. There was a young boy in my riding. He was a handicapped child who could not mobilize very well. He was 13 years old. He was sexually assaulted by an 18-year old boy. He was raped. The court case took place. The 18-year old was charged and convicted. The convicted 18-year old turn around and said ``I'm a victim because of things that happened in my past''. That may be so.
What happened was that the child who was raped did not have anywhere near the counselling, the care and the attention from our justice system and health professionals he needed. The convicted had many times the amount of money in support than the victim. The convicted had the primary focus of the justice system whereas the victim was forgotten. This bespeaks of a justice system that
does not fulfil its fundamental role, which is the protection of society and its members.
It is true that many people who commit offences, who are incarcerated in our prisons have had very serious and very sad lives. Their early childhood development has been riddled with with a great number of tragic and unbelievably terrible things. This is very common. However, one's history does not exonerate one from committing criminal acts today. We can understand what they have done but it does not exonerate them or excuse them from committing those acts.
Therefore we have to take a multilevel approach. We have to protect the victim, as my hon. colleague mentioned so eloquently in his speeches and in his victim's impact statement, which I encourage every member of the House to get a copy of before they vote on it. I also encourage every member to look at new ways we can address the precursors and ask ourselves why these individuals commit these offences.
(1605)
Many of these individuals have grown up in terrible family situations. We must deal with these situations early on. Children in environments where they are being beaten up and sexually abused are not being given the necessities to build up the basic pillars of a normal psyche. Where those things are absent we must collectively deal with the families to help the children. If the children do not have the pillars of a normal psyche they will grow up to be adults without the pillars of a normal psyche. That will manifest itself in conduct disorders in adolescence and in criminal behaviour in adulthood.
These things can be done without spending money. In the United States some interesting experiments have been conducted. They have looked at inner city school boards where there is a high degree of violence, drop out rates, teen pregnancy and criminal behaviour. They brought the children into the schools very early on, at the age of five or six. Not only did they teach the children their A, B, Cs, they taught the children what appropriate conflict resolution was and what drugs were all about. They learned about self-respect and having respect for others. These are normal pillars of a normal psyche which we all require to function in a caring and functional society.
These are things which the justice system ought to take a look at in conjunction with provincial counterparts, as the Liberal member mentioned. We must work with provincial governments and education departments, which are an integral factor, in addressing these problems to put an end to conduct disorders and violent and criminal behaviour.
It is incumbent on all of us as legislators to put first and foremost the rights of innocent victims in our justice system. The convicted must be taken care of as well, but our primary responsibility is to the victims who through no fault of their own have been violated.
I encourage every member of the House to vote for the victims' bill of rights presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. They will be doing it for themselves, their children and, most important, for Canadians from coast to coast.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the government has taken a significant number of steps in the review of criminal legislation to improve the safety of our homes and streets.
Certainly it is within the discretion of local chiefs of police to indicate to the appropriate people, when considering all the circumstances at their disposal, to release in varying degrees into the community information about the presence of sexual offenders.
The government has made changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to make it easier to keep individuals in custody to the end of their sentence.
The government has also introduced gun control legislation which allows police in appropriate circumstances to remove firearms from a house where there is a threat of use by the perpetrator of a crime or by someone who has made threats.
The minister has indicated that new legislation is on the way to deal with dangerous long term offenders. There is a possible review of the dangerous offender provisions to allow greater latitude or a greater length of time under which a dangerous offender application can be made.
There has been the institution of peace bonds to ensure greater protection for victims of crime.
(1610)
There is the possible introduction of long term offender designation which would allow community supervision for up to 10 years after release. This is in addition to a number of other steps which have increased the tools of law enforcement agencies, provincial attorneys general to detect and prosecute crime.
We would like to see the hon. member acknowledging the progress by the government, while everyone in the House acknowledges there is still more work to do.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
On gun control, regardless of whichever way we look at this, there will be up to $500 million removed from the functional arm of justice to gun control. There is something called an economic cost. That means that if we are moving money from A to B, we had better make sure we are getting more bang for our buck in B than in A.
There has been nothing to prove that the new legislation put forth will make any difference in crime. There is an abundance of studies showing the exact opposite, that the new changes in gun control will not work.
We in the Reform Party are committed to having good solid gun control legislation which protects individuals and society but we are loathe to support legislation that will make our streets less safe. The gun control legislation put forth by the government had nothing to do with keeping the streets safer but everything to do with seducing an urban population.
On the concept of the police, the police would do a lot more if they were supported by the courts, but they are not. If my hon. colleague would talk to the men and women in our police forces who day in and day out put their lives on the line and ask them whether the courts support them, he will get a very different picture because they do not.
They do not because of the decisions made in the past and a legal morass our judicial system is now under. It is weighted down by a legal morass that prevents justice from taking place. We need to rethink and look at that.
We also have to look at the way police officers are hampered by the legal documentation and paperwork they have to endure in their jobs. It impedes their ability to get their work done.
On the concept of restitution, restitution is not mentioned anywhere. The government has not done anything to deal with restitution to the victims from the criminals.
An important point for many individuals who have had to put restraining orders on individuals who have been hunting them, harassing them, is that restraining orders do not work. They are not enforced properly and we need to take a long, hard look at ensuring our restraining order system will work to protect those individuals being harassed and victimized.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition motion put forward by the member for Fraser Valley West, the victims' bill of rights.
Crime and victimization are complex and challenging social problems. The government believes dealing with these issues requires a thoughtful, informed and long term approach, one that deals with the early causes of crime.
A two-month old baby is left to cry when he needs comfort so that he will not be spoiled. A three-year old girl hears her dad abuse her mom one more time. A pregnant woman has another drink. What do these situations have to do with crime prevention and community safety? As isolated incidents maybe not a lot, but when they represent patterns for these children, the outcome may have an impact on crime and victimization.
Under the safe homes, safe streets initiative, the government formed the Canadian National Crime Prevention Council, an independent council of 25 volunteers from across the country. Its main focus is on the needs of children and youth and its commitment is to crime prevention through social development.
(1615)
Thanks to the council's work we are discovering some of the links, links between what happens to children from the prenatal stage to six years old and what becomes of them as adolescents and later as adults in our communities. The child victim often becomes the criminal offender. The reasons for this are varied and complex.
We know quite a bit about the childhood experiences of persistent offenders. We want to apply this knowledge to help children and families when they need it most. Poverty can bring with it a host of threats to children, including poor health, high family stress and difficulty forming warm, secure attachments to caregivers.
Risks to a fetus, including fetal alcohol syndrome and low birth weight, may affect a baby's brain development which can lead to hyperactivity, emotional problems and then to school failure, a risk factor in itself of delinquent behaviour. When parents do not get along and are unresponsive or overly authoritarian, children are also at risk. Socially competent children need emotionally available parents.
The community and the broader society in which our children grow can make a tremendous difference, not only in terms of financial support but also by encouraging resilience in high risk children. Resilient children who succeed despite having the odds stacked against them share certain traits. Many of these protective traits result from family and social influences.
Optimism for example has its roots in infancy, in a child being able to count on life feeling good. Competence, another such trait, depends on the support, encouragement and opportunities provided by interested adults. If a parent cannot provide the support, then another relative, a family friend or member of the community can step in and fill the gap.
Although much of this knowledge may seem like common sense, it must not be ignored when we develop policies and programs in response to crime and victimization. The lessons of early prevention are often pushed aside in the rush for harsher penalties for young offenders. There is even a demand by some for more of those charged with non-violent crimes to be imprisoned. This response may reflect our empathy for victims but it does not get at the underlying factors which lead to crime.
What do parents, families and communities need to nurture children in loving, supportive environments? If a child or teen breaks the law, what is the best way to intervene, to repair the harm done to the victim and to prevent a second crime? A victims bill of rights would not protect a child from abuse, provide him with a hot breakfast or a sympathetic ear. The way to prevent Canadians from becoming victims in the first place is to nurture, value and protect our children. For it is the neglected, abused and mistreated child who is most likely to find himself or herself involved in criminal activity later in life, a pattern that can be broken before it is too late.
The National Crime Prevention Council has been working in this vein on a prevention guide book for Canadians. The guide book will explain how crime and victimization can be traced back to childhood and how we can prevent crime from happening in the first place. I am sure that members of the House join me in looking forward to the launch of the guide book at the June Atlantic crime prevention conference in P.E.I. Early prevention is the key.
I am pleased to advise the House and the member for Fraser Valley West that I will support this motion. It is a step in the right direction. However, we must focus on the formative years of our children to ensure they do not reach a state where they are heavily involved in crime.
(1620)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have before us an opposition motion from the third party, which reads as follows:
That the House urge the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to proceed with the drafting of a victims' bill of rights, and that, in such areas where the committee determines a right to be more properly a provincial concern-and I emphasize this part of the motion-the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard-and I also emphasize this expression-for a victims' bill of rights.Victims have rights, victims have needs. If I may, I will use an illustration from testimony I heard before the standing committee on justice from a person who had lost a loved one when a crime was committed. This person did not tell us about loss of income, but rather about her emotional loss. She did not tell us about the criminal aspects involved, but rather about needing the government to offer her support during this difficult time.
This person was the indirect victim of a crime. I am telling this story to emphasize that the victims of crime are not the only direct victims. Sometimes people around the victim also suffer the consequences. The contribution the government can make to these direct or indirect victims is not just legal or financial, but also moral, supportive in nature.
How many times do we see victims or their relatives hounded by the media? What recourse, what protection do these people in their state of shock have to help them hang on to the privacy they need at a difficult time?
These are important questions. Victims and those close to them have rights because they have needs. Now, to meet these needs, to guard these rights, the question is: Who is best placed to do the job?
Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of protecting and compensating victims of crime; this is a given. And in Quebec, for a number of years now, we have had legislation that provides this protection and compensation for victims of crime. As I have just told you, in Quebec, the Government of Quebec has legislated this protection, this compensation. Why? Because it is a provincial responsibility.
Because this is a provincial area of responsibility, the federal government therefore has no business interfering. Let us be very clear, then: the Bloc Quebecois is strongly in favour of the protection and compensation of victims, but by the appropriate level of government; and, in this case, it is the provinces. Quebec has been active for a number of years in this area of jurisdiction.
(1625)
To put it more plainly, the jurisdiction proposed in the motion is not a matter for the federal government through the criminal law, that is section 91 (27), but, rather, concerns property and civil rights in the province, or section 92 (13). Therefore, national standards in this area would constitute flagrant interference in the provinces' exclusive areas of jurisdiction.
You will tell me that that would not be the first time. I am afraid not. In how many areas has the federal government, through its spending authority, interfered? If we look strictly at spending authority, the federal government could begin compensating victims left, right, and centre, first thing tomorrow. In one sense, these people would probably not be upset, but as I pointed out, what is important for victims or those close to them, is less the money than the comfort and moral support.
This person, who went through this unfortunate experience and described it to the justice committee added, and this is important, that a public servant had actually telephoned her the day after reading the newspapers to tell her that the pension cheque of her now dead loved one was already in the mail and that she should take steps to return it. The next day, twenty four hours later.
What victims or those close to them need is not necessarily financial compensation, but understanding, moral support, respect for human dignity, and these are things that the provinces are well equipped to provide. The provinces have all that is needed to do the social work required to ensure the respect of human dignity. I
repeat then, national standards in this area would constitute a flagrant infringement on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
This is not just my own opinion I am stating; on two occasions already the Privy Council-which, as you know, was the level of last recourse at the time, until its abolition in 1949-acknowledged provincial jurisdiction over victim compensation. This is the legal precedent, formed in the past, and formed solidly. It is something already in place, something that ought not to be opened to re-examination and challenge at this time.
In 1920, in its decision on Canadian Pacific v. the British Columbia Workers Compensation Board, the Privy Council acknowledged that, when victims are to be compensated, even if the company in question happens to be under federal jurisdiction, section 92(13) of the Constitution takes precedence and the provincial legislation applies. Now, in 1996, we cannot again question a practice that was entrenched in our Constitution, unless the Constitution itself is laid open to question.
In another decision, in 1937, following a reference on unemployment insurance, the Privy Council reaffirmed the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over victim compensation. This is why-I shall make this my concluding statement-the Reform motion, despite its praiseworthy intentions, runs totally counter to the policy of the Reform Party, which has been calling since it arrived here for greater decentralization of the federal system and respect for the exclusive provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Praiseworthy intentions, but the wrong approach, surprisingly. I would have preferred the Reform Party to continue along its path of decentralization of powers and respect for the jurisdictions of each of the provinces, instead of giving in to what I am sure was a flood of good intentions, and questioning an area of jurisdiction which is clearly provincial.
(1630)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the comment from the hon. member from the Bloc flies in the face of reality; decentralization on a number of issues from education, to health care, to job retraining and all these other areas we have talked about and have been promoting the idea or suggesting governments look at the British North America Act again and start getting things back in proper perspective and let the provinces look after certain areas and get the federal government to ensure standardization across the county and let the provinces handle things.
However, when it comes to the justice system, to say that although our intentions are honourable in terms of victims' rights, the federal government very much has to be involved in something like this.
It very much has to ensure that no matter where we live, whether it is in Quebec-a great province in this wonderful country where they belong and where this member should stop trying to pull them out of-British Columbia, Newfoundland or anywhere, we need a constitution, a set of laws which applies all across the country. Within the various provincial jurisdictions we then allow for the differences needed to be applied.
We have federal laws in the criminal system and we have provincial laws. Quebec has civil laws as well and we respect that difference based on history. For him to say that although our intentions are honourable we should butt out of the legal system is ridiculous.
This is an honest attempt by our member from Fraser Valley West to look after the interests of all Canadians whether anglophone, francophone or of ethnic origin from any country. It is to look after the victims. That is the point, victims who are, as the justice minister said, orphans of the justice system.
Somebody commits a crime. They are tried and found guilty. The victim is either beat up, dead or suffering physically. Once the trial is over they are forgotten. What we spend money and time and effort on is rehabilitation. Our system of justice is out of whack. The punishment does not match the crime over half the time. The judges have too much leeway. Instead of spending time in narrowing choices, and the House has the right to do that, we waste our time on other measures. We should be concentrating on items like this to ensure we are bringing a balance to the justice system.
This issue of decentralization and victims' rights is something the federal government should very much be involved in.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I know this intervention from the Reform Party is very sincere. However, in Quebec for many years we have been doing exactly what the Reform Party is proposing right now. Many other provinces have not done so. The privy council recognizes those powers and has given them to the provinces as per the Constitution
Basically what I am saying is let every province copy the example of Quebec. Quebec is different. Quebec on this subject and on many other subjects has taken the lead in Canada. We were here first, so maybe that explains it. However, if anyone wants to come to Quebec and have a look at how we are doing it, they are welcome. Then they can copy whatever we are doing.
However, do not duplicate once again here in the House with measures that are already implemented and working successfully in Quebec. That would be duplication. That would be spending the public's money unwisely. The intent is fine, but let the provinces do it as Quebec has been doing it.
(1635)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Could the member for Portneuf help me out? Was it his intention to share his time? He has had ten minutes, and he has another ten minute block for his speech.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, that was my intention, and I thought it had been understood. I see that perhaps it was not. In which case, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Everything is in order. The member for Portneuf used only ten minutes, which is the time allowed.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate on this motion. It asks the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to draft a victims' bill of rights. If the committee determines a right to be a provincial concern, the Minister of Justice would have to initiate consultations to establish a national standard.
The Bloc cannot join the Reform Party in supporting this motion, and I will explain why. However, I would first like to make it very clear that the Bloc Quebecois supports the protection and compensation of victims of criminal acts. This is basic, as my colleague for Portneuf pointed out. However, victim compensation is clearly a matter for the provinces, and the federal government has no reason to get involved in this area of provincial jurisdiction.
This right is a matter for provincial administration of justice. In fact, this cannot be a matter of federal criminal law under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act. It in fact comes under provincial property and civil rights under section 92(13) of the Constitution. I think this is clear.
Therefore national standards in this area would be a flagrant encroachment on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Twice the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the court of final appeal before its abolition in 1949, recognized the jurisdiction of the provinces over matters of victim compensation.
First, in 1920, in the matter of the Canadian Pacific and the British Columbia Workmen's Compensation Board, the Privy Council recognized that, in the case of victim compensation, even if the company involved were under federal jurisdiction, section 92(13) of the Constitution Act applied. This too is clear. The court concluded that the laws of British Columbia applied in the case of victim compensation.
In another ruling in 1937, in the Reference on Unemployment Insurance, the Privy Council reaffirmed exclusive provincial jurisdiction over compensation of victims. Clearly, from these rulings, compensation of victims is a provincial matter. Accordingly the motion by the Reform Party directly contravenes their party policy, which advocates greater decentralization of the federal system and full respect of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
It is surprising as well to see the Reform Party defending victims' rights, when it voted against the bill on gun registration.
(1640)
The Bloc believes that prevention is the best way to protect victims. In other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as everybody knows.
With its contradictory positions, the Reform Party is revealing the inconsistency of its policy on crime.
You cannot properly defend the rights of victims when you refuse to prevent crime by voting against the mandatory registration of guns, a measure aimed at preventing an increase in violent crime.
Another reason this motion must be rejected has to do with the throne speech. Following the throne speech, the Liberal government made a commitment to stop spending and encroaching on areas under the jurisdiction of the provinces without their approval. Accordingly, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is asked to consider the matter, the approval of the provinces would have to be sought. It would in all likelihood be denied by most of them.
Quebec is the leader with its Crime Victims Compensation Act. This legislation provides for a plan to compensate injured victims of crimes. Compensation is also provided for families of individuals killed. This legislation does not prevent civil law suits against an assailant for material damages or bodily harm.
This act fully meets the necessary objective of compensating the victims of criminal acts, especially since claims for compensation are examined by a commission which will ensure that the amount of compensation awarded is sufficient, fair and equitable.
The provinces have no need of the federal level to administer areas over which they have exclusive jurisdiction, particularly since Quebec's legislation on the treatment of offenders and victims is far more open and far less repressive than elsewhere in Canada. But when there is a desire to impose national standards, not only must the areas in which the standards are to be imposed come under federal jurisdiction, but also the government must have the necessary funds to invest in the undertaking.
At the present time, the federal government no longer has the financial capacity to invest in encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, the financial hole the future generations will have to get themselves out of is due, in large part, to the massive federal invasion of areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
The federal government has used its financial clout to impose national standards on the provinces by sharing program costs. This centralizing trend is running down at this time, simply because of the financial irresponsibility of the federal government, which has sought to add to its power by thumbing its nose at the division of powers imposed by the Canadian Constitution.
In conclusion, it is clear that the federal government has no place in the area of victim compensation. Federal invasion of this area would constitute an unacceptable encroachment into provincial jurisdictions and would run directly counter to the Liberal government's promises in the throne speech.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions. First, I heard from this speaker and the previous speaker about the encroachment of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction. Point 8 of our victims' bill of rights states that if a person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmitted disease, the victim of that offender should be able to find out about that fact. There was rape case tried in Montreal where the victim asked to have the perpetrator tested for AIDS and it was denied under the charter of rights. Yet both the previous speakers said they are doing very nicely and they do not need these kinds of rights.
(1645)
That is one illustration. I am sure that if I searched I would find a lot more examples of how it is just not being done in Quebec even though it is claimed that it is.
The approach being taken by the member is not a focus on the victims, it is still a focus on sovereignty and separation from the country. Is the member not trying to indicate that legislation that may come from this House would not apply to them because they choose to be another country, rather than concentrating on victims' rights.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I think that our colleague from the Reform Party is mixing apples and oranges. Nobody is trying to drag sovereignty into this motion. As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois is clearly in favour of protecting and compensating victims of crime.
What we are saying is that the administration of justice comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I will tell him again why that is so. This area of jurisdiction cannot come under the federal authority over criminal law set out in section 91 (27) of the Constitution Act. It comes instead under property and civil rights, which are under provincial jurisdiction, pursuant to section 92 (13) of the Constitution.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the hon. member for Drummond for having grasped the problem. I do not think that Reform has. The Reform Party, and this we have seen in several matters, makes comments, talks about certain things without really understanding the ins and outs of the subject.
Anything concerning the victims of criminal acts, and all of the issue of victims' rights, is the responsibility of the government of each province. If the Reform Party understood this rather important little item, it would perhaps see fewer problems in certain matters, would perhaps accuse us less of talking sovereignty or Constitution, if they at least wanted to respect the present Constitution. That is where one of the problems of the federal government lies, and the Reform Party represents that problem very well, the desire to legislate in areas that do not belong to it.
As I saw for myself when a member of the justice and legal affairs committee where we assessed the Young Offenders Act among other things, we in Quebec are at least 25 years ahead of the Reform Party. I understand that they do not understand that this is an area that does not belong to them, that this is not a federal jurisdiction. If everyone respected the Constitution, the country might not be so deep in debt today, perhaps we would not be discussing the things we are today.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Drummond, perhaps for the benefit of the Reformers, to repeat the extremely important bit of her speech in which she said that Quebec has an act for compensating the victims of crime. I would like her to go over it a bit so that the Reform members might understand what they did not grasp. Now we are giving them the chance to turn to the French channel and listen to the answer they will get.
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Crime Victims Compensation Act provides for a plan to compensate injured victims of crimes. Compensation is also provided for families of individuals killed. This legislation does not prevent civil law suits against an assailant for material damages or bodily harm.
It meets the objectives for compensation of victims of crime, particularly because requests for compensation are examined by a commission for victims of crime, which ensures that victims receive sufficient, just and equitable compensation. This is the effect of this law.
(1650 )
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address one item in the speech of the hon. member for Drummond. She said the Reform Party is not consistent and is contradictory. It is not really protecting victims and victims' rights because we voted against the gun control bill.
That is a pretty general and blank statement. Perhaps the information she received was ill-informed, much like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is half the time, uninformed and ill-informed.
I want to put on the record that the primary reason this party voted against the gun control bill was because it was an omnibus bill. It confused the punishment for the criminal misuse of firearms which we support. We favoured that part of the bill and in fact we recommended in amendments that it go to five years instead of four years.
Mr. Milliken: Nonsense.
Mr. Silye: If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would listen he would also learn from this.
It is the firearms registration portion that we were against and that is why we voted against it. I do not see where we are contradictory at all. We are interested in victims' rights.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): No doubt the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would like to answer but he will have to wait for another time. I am sure he will seize that opportunity.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would say this to the Reform member: When you are out to protect victims, you make sure you have the best means of protecting them, and the best way of protecting them is prevention. To my way of thinking, protection outweighs cure.
Reform members opposed the bill on gun control, which, to my mind, is not the way to prevent violence.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Calgary Centre voted in favour of the gun control legislation that this government proposed. I am surprised he is talking from the opposing side about it right now.
There is no question that all members in the House support services to victims and better treatment for victims within the criminal justice system.
I have been involved in a judicial agency, Youth in Conflict with the Law in the Waterloo region. I was involved with a whole series of organizations that dealt with offenders, the community and victims. There is no question as we examine the various programs that are offered in the country that Quebec is very much a leader in the area of criminal justice reform as well as dealing with victims of crime.
When I first became involved in working with offenders in the early seventies it became very clear that for the rehabilitation of young offenders, they would have to face up to their actions. They would have to make contact, where possible, with the people that they victimized and they would have to make restitution.
We have a number of programs in my community. We have pioneered many programs related to the judicial system in the Waterloo region. One of the programs that we pioneered was Youth in Conflict with the Law, working with young offenders.
Another program we pioneered was Kitchener House, a halfway house, so when people were being released from provincial institutions they would be eased into the community. The John Howard Society was active in our community and the Mennonite Central Committee started up the first victim offender reconciliation program back in the seventies. That is where the victim and the offender come together. When they are younger individuals it impresses on them the seriousness of their acts and the fact that there is a person involved who is hurt. From the victim's perspective, in many cases it helps them demystify who the offender is. We try to work out some compensation, fiscal and voluntary, that the offender can make to compensate the victim.
(1655)
We also recognized that victim services needed to be present within the police department. When victims were going to the courts and facing the trauma that victims face, people would be assisting them and explaining to them how the judicial system, which can be a very complex system, works.
There was also a group which initially got involved because of a sentence handed down to a sexual offender. A grandfather had sexually abused his granddaughter and they felt the grandfather got an inappropriately low sentence. The group started out calling themselves citizens concerned with crimes against children. Initially it was a lobby group reacting against the sentence. The next thing it had become involved in victim services in the community working with children, doing a lot of prevention work. Its members are always ready to respond in case help is needed, be it from the police or from other family members, but they were always there to assist the victim.
One of the troublesome aspects of the present state of affairs in the criminal justice system is we do not do enough to re-examine the way we deal with crime. In many cases we are following a knee-jerk approach, an approach that is being driven by the rhetoric of members of the Reform Party.
We get into a mindset that says we should try to deal with crime in a ``lock them up, throw away the key'' approach. In my community the victim services program for the police which we pioneered and which was supported by the provincial government, under the Harris government has been cut, slashed. That is for victims' rights. They are the kissing cousins of the Reform Party.
The program for husbands who abuse their spouses, run by the John Howard Society, was slashed to the bone. This program was to stop people from reoffending and to stop further victimization.
The sexual assault program, where community justice initiatives deal with victims of sexual assault, children and otherwise, was slashed by the provincial government. That concerns victims.
The biggest problem is we tend to ape and the rhetoric of the Reform Party apes what is happening in the United States in terms of crime and crime prevention. There is no worse model that we can possibly follow. The Europeans have shown much more effective ways of dealing with offenders which in turn makes the cost of the justice system cheaper and in turn allows funding for victims' services.
The tragedy is that there is not enough funding for victims' services because we are misspending it in the criminal justice system. At the present rate of sentencing it is expected that the population of prisons will increase by 50 per cent over the next five years. What a waste of money when keeping a person in prison costs $50,000 a year.
Let us be very clear when I am talking about people in prison and the justice system, I am talking about people who are property offenders, non-violent offenders, people who could be handled much cheaper in the community, be it through community service, or restitution or probation.
The climate that has been created is that away too much money is being thrown into the imprisonment area and we are doing precious little in the justice area.
(1700 )
I recommend to the members of the Reform Party that they look at the work of the crime community safety council. They might even go back to March 1993 when Mr. Horner, a former RCMP officer, a Progressive Conservative and the head of the justice committee, came up with a unanimous all-party recommendation in a report which would have dramatically shifted the way in which we dealt with the criminal justice system. It would have led to more community prevention and more work with victims.
If there is a problem in our system now, it is that we have not followed up on the recommendations of the Horner commission and the justice committee on this issue. There are many cases in that report of shifting resources to victims, to crime prevention and community safety. There is a rethinking of the way Canadians should deal with the whole issue of crime.
There is no question that in many cases victims have been ignored. I have worked in the system since the early 1970s and it breaks my heart to see victim programs in my community being slashed by the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario. It is the ideological kissing cousin of the Reform Party.
I accept that Reformers are being sincere in what they are trying to do. Please take a look at the justice committee report by Mr. Horner. Look at the cry from police across this country that there has to be a better, more effective way. Let us look to the European models and not to the United States. We know the American system does not work.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Reform Party brought forth legislation that would enshrine a victims bill of rights into law in Canada. Today the Liberals brought forth legislation that would enshrine sexual orientation as a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Which of these two issues are the hon. member's constituents and Canadians more interested in having this House deal with? Which of those two issues is more important to Canadians?
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, we are not living in a world of either/or. Many things are important to Canadians. I know that 81 per cent of Canadians are concerned that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. A poll has not yet been done in Canada which shows that Canadians condone discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, that does not negate the whole issue of victims which we must address.
I will repeat to the member that I shed tears when I see funding slashed by the provincial government for programs that were painfully developed to nourish community support for victims, victims in my community.
There is no question that I will support the motion for a victims bill of rights, but we have to look at where the money will come from. We will get that money if we make the judicial system more effective. It will not be more effective if we continue with the rhetoric of the Reform Party. We will increase the rate of incarceration in this country by 50 per cent at a great expense and it will not be effective.
I hope the Reform Party members phone their ideological cousins in the province of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government members, to protest the cutting of victims programs. I expect and hope that members of the Reform Party will do that. I look forward to their doing that.
(1705 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the cost of keeping people incarcerated. Does the member know that in 1989 the bureau of justice statistics issued estimates of how many crimes are prevented when people are locked up rather than walking the streets? Analyst Patrick Langdon concluded that higher incarceration rates between 1973 and 1989
cut the number of rapes by 66,000, robberies by 323,000, assaults by 380,000 and burglaries by 3.3 million.
In addition, in 1995 a Princeton University criminologist wrote that the best available estimates of prison operating costs led him to calculate that imprisoning 100 convicted felons who offended at the median rate cost $2.5 million, but leaving them on the streets cost $4.6 million. It is actually cheaper to keep offenders in prison.
Has the member heard of those statistics?
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what comes forward from members of the Reform Party. If their advice were to be followed we would lock up everyone possible and throw away the key. It is because of that kind of attitude that we have picked up on the American model which is very expensive and destructive. It does not promote safer communities. It ends up being very costly and does nothing for the victims of crime.
The conference that was held at the Royal York Hotel in March 1993 brought people together from across the country. Police officers, judges, people in government and people from communities were there. The Federation of Municipalities was there, as well as groups representing victims rights, young offenders and correctional services. They concluded, after looking at all the models in the free world, that the one which worked the best was the European model and the least desirable model was the American model.
The hon. member did not take me up on my challenge when I asked him if he and his party were going to phone the premier of Ontario and say to him: ``We do not want you to stop funding programs for the victims of crime in the province of Ontario''. That is exactly what is happening in the province of Ontario right now.
We have to pay attention to victims. We have to ensure that the support services are there for them. I hope Reform members will contact the premier of Ontario and say: ``We do not want you to stop funding programs for the victims of crime''.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the motion today which urges the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to draft a victims bill of rights.
The government has continued a trend to be more responsive to victims. The improvements to the justice system, initiated by the federal government, were made without any victims bill of rights. The government took action because it was the right thing to do.
Earlier today we heard numerous examples of specific initiatives to benefit victims of crime. These initiatives go well beyond the principles that would be set out in a victims bill of rights. Actions do speak louder than words.
I support the adoption of a federal declaration on the rights of victims, but I believe there are several factors to consider. I am in favour of a declaration of rights for victims, but I believe we should be speaking about concrete rights for victims. In lending support for a national bill, which I assume suggests federal legislation, we must be careful not to prescribe rights over which the federal government has no jurisdiction and no authority to enforce.
(1710 )
Actions speak louder than words. Setting out principles and calling them rights which could not be effectively enforced would be pointless. We should direct our energy at addressing specific issues which we have the power to address.
Recommendations for a victims bill of rights are not novel. This debate has been ongoing since the mid-1980s. Ever since the American Congress passed its federal victims bill of rights, many Canadians have advocated that we follow suit. It is difficult to disagree with a bill of rights for victims. However, we should ensure that victims of crime will benefit from a so-called bill of rights.
We have had this discussion at both levels of government, federal and provincial. Since the report to ministers of justice of the federal task force on justice for victims of crime in 1983, the federal government, the provinces and territories have been engaged in ongoing consultations regarding improvements to the criminal justice system which would benefit victims of crime within the respective areas of responsibility. These consultations have squarely addressed the enactment of a victims bill of rights.
In 1985 Canada co-sponsored the United Nations statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. Canada's justice system already reflected those principles in 1985. The UN declaration prompted the federal and provincial governments to re-examine the issue of a victims bill of rights. There was an overwhelming consensus that a national bill of rights would not advance the cause of victims.
While all the provinces and the federal government were sincerely committed to making changes to the justice system, it was recognized that certain concerns could only be addressed by provincial legislation and other concerns could be addressed by federal legislation. The majority of concerns could not be addressed by legislation at all, but by changing attitudes about the role of the victim in the process and about basic human values of dignity and respect.
It was also recognized that in order to be meaningful a bill of rights must have a mechanism of enforcement. Rights without remedies cannot truly be said to be rights. For example, if a bill of rights states that victims have the right to receive timely information about the status of the investigation or the prosecution of the offender, what is the remedy when they feel they have not received
timely information? Who is responsible? Likely it is the police and/or the crown.
How can a single piece of legislation assign obligations to different participants in a justice system that play distinct roles and are employed by separate ministries? Moreover what is the remedy? Should the prosecution be called off because the victim did not get information? I do not think so. The advocates of a bill of rights do not think so either.
The example makes the point that all we really can do is prescribe a set of principles to guide all players in the criminal justice system and continue to encourage them to adhere to these principles. The victim is essential to the proper functioning of our criminal justice system and is deserving of the utmost consideration at all stages in the process.
The federal government is responsible for enacting the criminal law while the provinces are generally responsible for the enforcement of the law, the prosecution of offences and the administration of justice. Given that a bill of rights would not be of rights at all but of principles, the provinces and the federal government would get together and do something else.
In 1988 at a meeting of justice ministers, the federal and provincial governments endorsed the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. The notion of a statement rather than a bill of rights addressed both the jurisdictional and the practical concerns. All jurisdictions would ensure that whatever initiatives they pursued would reflect these principles, whether in policy or in legislation.
Since 1988 several provinces, including Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and both the territories have enacted victim legislation which does refer to these principles.
The Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime states that in recognition of the United Nations declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, federal and provincial ministers responsible for criminal justice agree that the following principles should guide Canadian society in promoting access to justice, fair treatment and provision of assistance for victims of crime.
First, victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy. They should suffer the minimum of necessary inconvenience from their involvement with the criminal justice system.
(1715 )
Victims should receive through formal and informal procedures prompt and fair redress for the harm which they have suffered. Information regarding remedies and the mechanisms to obtain them should be made available to victims.
Information should made available to victims about their participation in criminal proceedings and the scheduling, progress and ultimate disposition of the proceedings.
Where appropriate the views and concerns of victims should be ascertained and assistance provided throughout the criminal process.
Where the personal interests of the victim are affected, the views or concerns of the victim should be brought to the attention of the court where appropriate and consistent with criminal law and procedure.
Measures should be taken when necessary to ensure the safety of victims and their families and to protect them from intimidation and retaliation.
Enhanced training should be made available to sensitize criminal justice personnel to the needs and concerns of victims and guidelines developed where appropriate for this purpose.
Victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other relevant assistance so they might continue to receive the necessary medical, psychological and social assistance through existing programs and services. Also, victims should report the crime and co-operate with law enforcement authorities.
As members can see, the majority of these principles relate to matters that can be addressed only by the police, prosecutors or court officials. In other words, the majority of victim issues fall to the provinces. It was therefore essential that the provinces had input into the statement and so overwhelmingly supported it.
The question is whether a national bill of rights for victims will do more than the existing statement of principles. A national bill of rights would likely be welcomed by victims, but they would be even more interested in concrete action on the government's commitment to issues like gun control, sentencing and the recently introduced initiatives of Bill C-17 and Bill C-27, which include provisions to strengthen or expand existing protections such as peace bonds and publication bans. Again, actions speak louder than words.
We must also look at the progress made in the last 15 years and talk to victims to find out what they really need in 1996.
In February of this year I read an article in the Vancouver Sun that highlighted the hon. member's proposal for victim rights, in many respects similar to the Canadian statement of basic principles: a right to information about services, a right to be informed of the offender's status, court dates, sentencing dates, a right to an oral or victim impact statement and a right to protection from intimidation.
It also went beyond the existing statement that proposed a right to participate in plea bargain discussions, a right to have police lay charges in domestic violence cases and a right to know if an offender has a sexually transmitted disease. These are certainly controversial issues but they are probably incapable of a remedy in the event of a breach. Moreover, they impact on areas that only the provinces can address.
I emphasize again that I strongly believe that victims of crime have a role to play in our criminal justice system and as such we must do whatever is feasible to ensure their participation does not result in revictimization. Ideally we would like to prevent crime and in consequence prevent victimization.
While we are making significant inroads in crime prevention, we know there will always be victims of crime. That is a sad but true fact. Therefore we must be responsive to their concerns. I believe the government has shown leadership and we know the work is not done. It still requires improvement in a variety of ways, all of which will in turn benefit the victims.
I am also aware the provinces continue to pursue initiatives to improve the administration of justice to benefit victims. I am aware the issue will be discussed at next week's meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for criminal justice. I am sure the provinces will be keenly interested in the hon. member's motion and in today's debate.
While I have no problem supporting a bill of rights for victims, I do not believe it is a cure-all remedy.
(1720 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is kind of sad to hear the things we hear. Sometimes when we are debating with the lawyers in the House, the legal industry, that is the very group which has provided a lot of the problems as far as victims' rights go.
To stand in the House, as the justice minister did this morning, and riddle off all these statements of principles the United Nations and others have dealt with is nice. However, the reason this is before the House today is virtually all of that is not done. It is nice to ascribe to a set of principles but when we do nothing about it, that is the problem.
There was the suggestion that it is only the Reform Party looking at some of these issues. Every victims' right group, virtually every one in the country, has had input into these legislative ideals we have tabled and agrees with them. I see a big difference in that we are not here to talk about only a statement of principles. We are here to have victims' rights somewhere in legislation.
I would like to hear the non-legalese version of my hon. colleague on whether is it better to have a statement of principles which no one is buying into in the legal industry or to have some form of legislation for victims and victims' rights.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I find it amusing if not ironic that we talk about the justice industry in this country. I have to turn it back and ask if the Reform Party is interested in doing away with those who represent people before the courts, if it would do away with their right to counsel, if it would do away with their right to a proper defence, if it willingly and wilfully eliminate people's access to knowledge of the law, and if it would say a person is going to go into court, not be represented, be accused by the full force of the state and be left to fly by the seat of their pants.
The hon. member wants to know if it is better to have a statement of principles or to have a bill of rights. I will give as an example witnesses who appeared before the justice committee two weeks ago. The hon. member was not at that meeting. There appeared before the justice committee two weeks ago-
The Deputy Speaker: The policy in the House is not to refer to the fact that a member was not in the House or was not in the committee. I ask the member not to do that again.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago before the justice committee appeared victims' rights groups. The sole point raised in this testimony was that as victims they felt intimidated by certain gangs within a community. There is no question these people were the victims of a horrendous crime.
If the federal government had two years ago enacted victims' rights legislation there would be nothing the victims in this case could do to enforce those rights because, as we know, policing falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. As a result, if the police do not respond to a call, if the police do or do not intervene, a federal bill giving them some sort of a right cannot be enforced provincially. It can be enforced only with respect to the jurisdiction of the federal government. We may not like this, but that is a fact of Canadian life.
(1725)
Therefore I would suggest that in this case a statement of principles which becomes policy within the respective federal and provincial jurisdictions is just as effective as a bill of rights attempting to effect provincial jurisdiction but which will have no effect whatsoever on provincial authorities.
We can have a bill of rights but unless we are legislating within our purview the end result is that we are making a statement of principles. As we know, we cannot legislate, we cannot dictate to police forces how many officers they will have. Only the solicitor general of a province can do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time has expired for questions and answers.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
When you are in your constituency you hear from people who manage to listen to the parliamentary channel every once in a while and what goes on in the Chamber. They are sick and tired of hearing this legal jargon. Over and over we hear all of these lawyers talking and illustrating all the good things they know and all the wonderful things they are to do. Let us not confuse things. Let us talk about this or that. They have people's minds totally confused.
What is it they stand for? What are they trying to do? What do they mean by doing this and that? I think everybody out there is coming to the conclusion I came to a long time ago that the more you keep the people confused, the public, the better it is for the people in the House of Commons, particularly the Liberals.
We came out with a document, a victims' bill of rights. We get all this rhetoric that they can support it, but. Certainly they can support it. They had better support it. It does not make sense that they constantly come up with this whole idea of all these wonderful things they have been doing for two and half years are the answer to victims. They are not. They are not listening at all.
There are eight points on this list. The reason they are on this list, the reason they are on our agenda is that they are on the people's agenda throughout the land. If anybody in the House thinks the majority of Canadians are really happy with our justice system, for heaven's sake let us all go home and ask them one more time how happy they are.
These eight items are on this list because they are on the people's list. That is what they want to see happen. Look at point eight, that victims have a right to now if a person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmitted disease. I cannot believe all the lawyer rhetoric in the House trying to tell us what is wrong with that statement when it is pure and simple.
It is based on several cases, one in particular in Quebec, which is supposed to be doing all the right things, of a woman working in a church office, a secretary, on a Saturday, when she was raped, not sexually assaulted, raped, beaten by an individual on a day pass from prison. After all the trauma of being beaten and raped and humiliated and scarred for life, she simply wanted to know if this perpetrator had a sexually transmitted disease or HIV. She wanted to eliminate that possibility.
For goodness sake, if that does not make just plain old ordinary horse sense, I do not know what does. We heard this kind of rhetoric a dozen times from a couple of speakers.
(1730 )
Once again this is on our agenda because it is on the agenda of Canadians. It is on the agenda of the people from FACT, CAVEAT, CRY, Move the Rock, Remove the Rock, the Kid Brother campaign. More and more a whole pile of individuals are signing up to the victims groups across the land.
Why is it that in two and one-half years membership in the victims organizations is growing probably 10 to 100 times faster than the membership in the Liberal Party? Why is it when victims of crime are invited to a convention in Hamilton that come thousands come? It is because we are not doing our job.
We are now asking that we provide something which represents what they would like to have. We are listening to the people. These are the things the police are calling for. These are the things the public is calling for. It is not just the Reform Party. It is on our agenda because it is on the people's agenda. I am really tired of hearing about these wonderful bills the Liberals have passed in two and one-half years, C-37, C-68, C-41, all the wonderful things they are doing for the victims.
It is really amazing that in January 1994 all these things were supposed to be submitted to the justice minister in order for him to come up with some new ideas on the Young Offenders Act. He came up with Bill C-37. If C-37 was such a hot and wonderful bill, will somebody please explain why the justice minister has the justice committee going all across the country asking people what they want to do about young offenders? It is because he knows it is not even close to being solved. Yet three, four or five times today in the House I heard the Liberals saying what a wonderful thing they have done for victims.
Nobody talks about the fact that in Bill C-41 the Liberals wanted to put dangerous offenders in alternative programs which we opposed. Nobody even mentioned the legislation where if a member of this place or some other elected place commits a crime, as long as their sentence was not longer than five years-until we had it amended-they could still draw their pay and be a member of the government they were elected into. Nobody even mentions that. We had it reduced to two years. Is it not wonderful to know that if you are a parliamentarian you can go out and break the law and as long as your sentence is not longer than two years you can still get your pay and be happy?
All we are saying is to address the victims. These are some of the things we can do. These are some of the things that will give hope to the people from those organizations in our constituencies.
With Bill C-68, the same old rhetoric flies on and on. Nobody mentions the 150 pages that address the law-abiding people and the very little that addresses the criminal. Nobody mentions all the flaws that were in that legislation. Thank goodness we have our
member for Calgary North who has a little bit of law experience. He sat with me for a day or two and explained all the flaws that were in that law and what made it such a bad piece of legislation. It was not the principle of making certain that people are not hurt with guns. This was wise. However, C-68 certainly did not take care of that.
What a tragedy that case was in Vernon, but the law was followed to the letter when it came to C-68. All the right paperwork was in place, registration and everything. The only thing they failed to say was that the person had victimized people in the past. With a little bit of time and effort they would have realized that we cannot issue a gun to a person like that. That is all it would have taken. Now C-68 certainly did not do a lot of good in that case. Stop all that nonsense. It is not doing that much good and it will not do any good.
(1735 )
Think of the people who got out on bail. People are arrested at breakfast and bailed out at noon. There are over a dozen cases now involving serious offences where the person was arrested and bailed out. They then went on to finish the act before the day was over. They committed murder and sexual assault.
We should do something about protecting victims in those situations, but we do not do anything. We come out with thick documents which are flawed to no end and then brag about them. We get a bunch of lawyer talk to make people out there in the land think we know what we are doing. And they wonder what we are doing because they do not understand.
I am beginning to understand more and more. There is one thing I believe with all my heart. I was told this by an individual some time ago. I am beginning to see what he meant. He said that when the government fears the people we have a democracy and when the people start fearing the government we have tyranny. He said we had better watch what is happening in Canada and I believe him now more than ever.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, in terms of government legislation, the hon. member for Calgary Centre made some of the same points. Interestingly enough, the hon. member for Calgary Centre who spoke against the government's gun legislation today, supported the government when the legislation was before the House. I guess that is rehabilitation Reform style. The two members who supported the government have been rehabilitated. They have been taken to the woodshed.
I have in my hand the victims services pamphlet which is put out by the Waterloo regional police. It says that victims of crime need not suffer physical injuries to experience severe effects for weeks or months after the crime. They may feel anger, fear, guilt and helplessness. To assist victims in dealing with the effects of crime the Waterloo regional police established a victims services unit. Civilian counsellors in the unit provide assistance to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes. Actually, a fair number of the services it offers fit in with the Reform Party's victims bill of rights.
Would the hon. member for Wild Rose and his party support the idea of letting the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario know that the victims services as operated by the Waterloo regional police force are services which they support and that the provincial government should not be slashing funding to that organization as well as other victims organizations?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, first I will defend my colleague for Calgary Centre. He votes with his nose once in a while; he votes one way and holds his nose.
People are attempting to do a number of things across the land. A lot of good volunteer organizations are trying their best to help the victims. That is why we have all of these victims groups.
Of course there are a lot of things we would like to support financially. However, we all know from the record of Liberal and Conservative governments in the last few years that we are broke. The provinces are struggling. It is a real battle. We continue to waste money.
I really do not know what the situation is in the Ontario government, but I have a better idea. I doubt if it costs a great deal of money to provide certain things. Maybe we should come up with it this way. Why does the hon. member and his colleagues not give up their pensions? We could steer that money into the cause. What about that for a change? Maybe we could get the front line people to give up their limousines. We could use that money. Maybe you could show some leadership in that area instead of give, give, give. In the meantime, you are trying to figure out how much money you can get, get, get. The attitude on that side of the House stinks.
(1740)
The Deputy Speaker: The other member was corrected. I would ask the member and all members, to please put their remarks through the Chair and not across the floor.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this Reform motion concerning victims rights put forward by the member for Fraser Valley West.
The point of the motion is very basic. We are asking the Liberal government to commit to draw up a victims bill of rights. The motion asks the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to draft a victims bill of rights. In areas of provincial jurisdiction the Minister of Justice should consult with the provinces to arrive at a national standard. It is long past time that victims rights be recognized.
As a Reform member of Parliament I am proud to say that the Reform Party is the only party fighting for victims rights in the House. At the same time I am pleased that the Minister of Justice has agreed to support the motion. However, it is not enough to support the motion in principle. Policies must be followed up with actions. The government has been notorious for its promises, but its ability to follow through on the promises has left a lot to be desired. The GST comes to mind.
This is the third debate on victims rights in the House since the last election and Canadians are still waiting for a bill to come forward. We have heard a lot of rhetoric, but victims need far more than rhetoric. Principles carry little weight unless they are put into action. We need a victims bill of rights and I hope that the government will not keep victims waiting for much longer.
Canadians want a system that is fair, just and compassionate. Canadians expect this from a justice system that currently recognizes the rights of the criminal but refuses to entrench the rights of the victim in legislation.
Our justice system is meant to serve all in society. At present it serves just the criminals. There are three parts to a justice system: the law, the criminals and the victims. Somewhere along the line the victims have been left out of the equation. Victims have been neglected by the system to the point where they are the last ones to be consulted or considered and now they are going to be the last to be recognized legally.
The focus of our justice system has been primarily on the criminal. The victim has been shoved to the side and it is time that we realigned our priorities so that victims rights are first and foremost. The victim simply must come first.
In my constituency in Courtenay, B.C., on October 24, 1992 six year old Dawn Shaw was raped and then stomped to death by her babysitter, 16 year old Jason Gamache. Unknown to Dawn's parents, Jason Gamache had two previous convictions of sexual molestation. He had been convicted of two sexual assaults on four year old children, one a girl, the other a boy.
In 1991 a year before the murder, Jason was convicted in Nanaimo. He moved to Courtenay with his mother to attend court ordered sex offender therapy through the John Howard Society. Jason Gamache's probation order clearly stated that he was to have no contact with children under the age of 12. Yet the only people who knew about his background were his mother, his probation officer and the John Howard Society. The RCMP were not notified when Jason moved to Courtenay. They were unaware of his record. Why? Because the criminal's rights were put ahead of those of everyone else.
Jason Gamache was restricted from children under the age of 12, yet he was living right next door to an elementary school. On the same night that he murdered Dawn Shaw, he babysat Dawn Shaw's brother and sister because Dawn Shaw's parents did not know he was a convicted sex offender.
Jason Gamache received the maximum penalty of life with no parole for 10 years. In 1999 when Jason Gamache is 23 he will be eligible for unescorted release from day prison and will be free to roam the streets. The greatest tragedy is that this and many other crimes could have been prevented. Yet our system puts the rights of the criminals, like Jason Gamache, ahead of the rights of society and the rights of Dawn Shaw. Criminals like Jason Gamache have all kinds of rights.
(1745)
What rights do the victims have? Surely six-year-old Dawn Shaw and her parents had the right to know their babysitter was a dangerous sexual offender. Convicted murderers demand their rights be respected, but rights of victims go unheard.
What about the rights of those who suffer for a lifetime? What rights do the parents of murdered children have? The rights of families with small children like Dawn Shaw who are left vulnerable and oblivious to the dangers of their environment are secondary to the rights of her killer. We cannot put the rights of criminals ahead of our children.
Canadians have the right to know the dangers that exist when there are violent offenders roaming the streets or living next door. Parents have the right to know when there is a child molester in their backyard.
There is a need for a victims' bill of rights. There are a number of rights victims should have yet they do not. Either they are not on the books or there is no mechanism to enforce them. Too often victims are not informed when there is an investigation and this should not be happening in our justice system.
Victims should be fully informed about the progress and outcome of the investigation and the charges to be laid against the offender. If charges are not laid, the victims should be informed why not. The victim must have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including, but not restricted to, notification of any arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender from custody, including notification of what community the parolee is being released into, conditions of release and parole dates. Victims should also be aware of the criminal's whereabouts at all times.
Victims' rights should also be extended to protect victims of domestic violence. If a victim files a complaint of domestic violence the police must have the authority to follow through tothe end.
The rights of the victim and compensation for the victim's losses should also be a priority consideration. The government must hold the criminal accountable for the crime. Restitution orders should be mandatory, not at the discretion of the courts. It is not enough to give victims their rights. Victims need to know what their rights are. Victims must be informed of their rights at every stage and all information should be made available on request.
Some provinces have taken the initiative to put forward legislation that protects the rights of victims of crime. In British Columbia the victim of crime act gives victims legal rights to information and rights to compensation. However, it only applies to those serving terms of less than two years who fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Ontario victims' right bill allows victims to be provided with information, yet the problem remains. Many of these measures apply only to provincial institutions and will not help victims of crimes under federal jurisdiction.
Provincial legislation is a move in the right direction but it is only a beginning. Provincial laws to protect victims will only apply to provincial violations.
Under the Constitution Act of 1867, Parliament has jurisdiction over the management of penitentiaries, so anything related to prisoners or parole are federal responsibilities. Yet victims have fallen through the cracks because neither the federal government nor the provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction. Victims fall into both federal and provincial jurisdiction and it is the responsibility of both to work together to establish a national standard for victims' rights.
Why is it that we have a national standard for the environment, a national standard for health, a national standard for parks and a national standard for broadcasting? Is it asking too much to establish national standards for victims' rights? I think not.
It is time for the government to set things straight. It is time for us to show compassion and respect for the victim, that is at the very least equal to that which we give the criminal.
In conclusion, we are asking that the government look into a victims' bill of rights. It is not a huge commitment but it is a small but significant step in the right direction. I hope government members will support this motion, not only with their vote but also with their actions.
(1750)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to part of the member's speech and I wonder if I understood and if the member has really analyzed the situation in certain provinces. I will not speak about British Columbia, the example used by the member, I will speak about Quebec.
In Quebec we have the Crime Victims Compensation Act. It is not true that this act compensates victims or covers their rights only when the offence is punishable by imprisonment of more than two years. It applies to all crimes, as its name indicates. Therefore whenever anyone suffers damages as the result of a murder, theft or bodily harm, regardless of whether the crime is punishable by imprisonment for two, five or ten years or six months or a fine, the Crime Victim's Compensation Act applies.
Provinces without such legislation may be provinces where interest is lacking. It is not up to the federal government to establish it. This legislation is provincial. It is a provincial matter. In Quebec we created this legislation with the Crime Victims Compensation Act.
I would like to know from the member, with speeches being made, things proposed and people accused, whether the members of the Reform Party have at least done an analysis? Could the member who just spoke tell us whether, from his research in certain provinces, the legislation he has just quoted applied to all victims of crime or just some? I would like to know whether he really seriously analyzed the situation in British Columbia and Quebec.
I think he will conclude that it is not a matter of federal jurisdiction and he will follow our example of advocating each province's passing legislation to compensate victims of crime and to enshrine victims' rights. We in the Bloc say that victims' rights must be protected, but the right legislature must do the job, and I think the Reform Party is once again mistaken.
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, the member for Fraser Valley East checked victims rights' bills across Canada. The problem is that they are all over the board.
That is why a national standard is necessary. The standard should apply right across the country. Otherwise, people will move from province to province to get into jurisdictions where they may not have to pay or may have a lesser penalty.
We need a national standard. It is not in place at the moment. It is definitely required.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. The gun control legislation gives police authority in cases where an individual has threatened violence against a spouse, another person or has committed an act of violence, under certain circumstances, to remove the firearms from that offender.
I wonder if the member is in support of leaving those firearms in the hands of the offender.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the law may be on the books all right, but my understanding is that the police do not enforce it. That is a major problem.
Speaking of the gun bill, we are going back to registration and the government's folly that people who are going to register their guns will not commit crimes. A criminal does not take a long gun to rob a jewellery store. Criminals use illegal weapons.
That was the problem with the gun bill right from the beginning. There was never a gun lobby in Canada. There is now, and the Liberals are going to pay for it in the next election.
(1755 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support of the motion of my colleague, a motion I will read one more time for the benefit of the members. The motion is to introduce a bill for victims' rights:
That the House urge the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to proceed with the drafting of a Victim's Bill of Rights, and that, in such areas where the Committee determines a right to be more properly a provincial concern, the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard for a Victims' Bill of Rights.It is a very well constructed motion because it takes into account some of the points that were raised by a member a moment ago that the jurisdiction of the federal government does not extend to all areas. Some are under provincial control. It really requires provincial co-operation in order to make this work. I am pleased to note that a lot of Liberal members support this type of action. We certainly do need a victims' bill of right.
As I listened today to the speeches and I heard the reasons why we need this victims' bill of rights it really started to make me think about what has led us to this point where we have to talk about this victims' bill of rights.
What is the root cause of all this crime that has us so concerned about our safety and the type of environment that we are in that we have to go to this point of protecting so many victims? What is it that has led us to this point where we have the ``Stop the Rock,'' ``Get Rid of the Rock'' and the CUSJ, CAVEAT and other groups? Why are they there? What has caused it?
Why is there graffiti all down the Sparks Street Mall that was not there just a year ago? I see graffiti on my office building in North Vancouver that was not there a year ago. Why is it that my parents felt safe walking the streets at night when they were my age? It was perfectly safe for them to let me out as child to play in the park or to go with my friends to the local forest to play games without having to be concerned?
Why was it safe for me to walk to school instead of the situation you see today where every morning hundreds of thousands of parents across Canada feel obliged to put their children in the car to drive them maybe half a kilometre or a kilometre to their school because they do not feel confident of the safety of their children?
How come there are drive-by shootings in Vancouver? There was at least one here in Ottawa in the last year. There were not drive-by shootings even five years ago. What is going on here?
Why does my wife have to be accompanied to her car in the car park in the evening when she leaves the office when she did not have to do that five years ago? There is something dreadfully wrong.
The more I thought about it today as I was listening to these speeches the more I could see that the root cause of the problem, the reason that we are standing here today working on this victims' bill of rights is that something terrible has happened over the last two decades that has brought us to this point.
I challenge every member in the House to ask themselves what has changed and they will soon come to same conclusion that I did. It has all happened because we do not treat criminals like criminals anymore. We have sent a message to the criminals, to the young offenders, to all of those people out there who are destroying our society that we owe them a living, that what they are doing is okay.
When the police come to my office building because young people are spray painting on the side of the building they stand back and they try to have some discussion with these young people, these young punks just tell the police to F-off. I cannot say the words here in the House but I think we are all familiar with the type of contempt with which the police are treated from these types of punks.
We have told these people by our actions is that it is okay to spray paint on buildings. It is okay to do all these petty crimes that increase our tolerance of crime.
Over the past 20 years or so the justice system has tended to concentrate on this theory of rehabilitation, claiming that we really need to get to the root cause of the crime. If we can just say to people we love you, please be good, that they will be good. Twenty years has shown us it does not work. With all of the examples that I have just given, I challenge members to think of their own examples. I hear a member on the other side saying nonsense, but of course he does not have a wife he has to worry about going to the car park to get to her car every day.
(1800)
I invite members to think about that. I would also like them to think about the aggressive policing that has been taking place in
New York over the last little while and the effect that longer prison terms have had on the crime rate in that city.
It seems that perhaps a more punishment oriented system will actually get control of the type of crime that has led us to this point where we are asking for a victims' bill of rights.
I remind members about a police commissioner of New York, William Bratton, who said the root of crime is criminals. If we start to recognize that it is criminals who cause crimes and begin addressing that problem we will reduce the number of victims dramatically and we will not need all of the extra money, hundreds of millions, that we a pouring into victims' rights groups to help all the people who have become victims of these criminals.
In 1990 when Mr. Bratton was the security director for the New York subway system, he took a hardline approach in terms of the graffiti, loud radio playing and spitting on the sidewalk. He told his security people that he wanted to clamp down hard on all of these minor crimes and send a message of zero tolerance. There was an impressive drop in serious crimes. Robberies within one year were down 75 per cent and serious felonies were down 64 per cent in just five years.
Mr. Bratton so impressed the people of New York that he was subsequently elected police commissioner of New York where his methods have resulted in a 31 per cent drop in murders, a 25 per cent drop in car theft and a 22 per cent drop in robberies. These improvements appear to come directly from an increased concentration by police on minor crimes, the sorts of things that we have come to tolerate, the graffiti, the foul language in public, all of those minor crimes. If we would just send the message that we do not tolerate that, we could restore some sense to our system.
Like many other members in the House, I have visited high schools from time to time. Any time I ask high school students if they think the Young Offenders Act needs changing, at least 99 out of 100 students put their hands up and say the Young Offenders Act needs changing.
When I asked them if they think they are being influenced by the hype in the newspaper, the crimes that are reported, and really the problem is not that bad, that they are really being influenced emotionally and have not really thought about it, 99 out of 100 still thought it was wrong, that it badly needs changing.
I have an article which appeared in the north shore news. It is in the youth views section. It was written by a grade 12 student in my riding, Sarah Duro: ``Get out of jail free is basically what the Young Offenders Act does for youth today. Children between the ages of 12 and 19 are protected for crimes that rank from shoplifting to murder. The consequences for the more major crimes are a mere slap on the wrist. It appears that young people have special needs since they are not fully mature and should not suffer the same consequences as adults. But surely if a child is mature enough to take someone's life, they are mature enough to pay the price''.
That is the sort of feeling I hear regularly in the schools. I again challenge members across the House to think about the times they have asked questions about justice issues in high schools. They will know I am telling the truth about the reactions.
Sarah wrote: ``If you are committing an adult crime you should be treated the way an adult would be treated instead of being treated as a helpless child''. She goes on to say how they had a discussion in her class all about the Young Offenders Act and how the penalties should be increase.
It is my experience that students in high schools would be a lot more harsh on their piers than we would ever be as parliamentarians in the sorts of punishments we would propose.
(1805)
Sarah finishes by saying: ``Here is a small suggestion. Maybe our government should start issuing a licence to kill for youths today. Wait a minute, they already have. It's called the Young Offenders Act''.
That is the sort of attitude youth have. The adults in my riding are also extremely upset about the way the justice system is operating.
In the August 29, 1995 edition of Investor's Business Daily there was close to a full page of statistical information in an article by John Barnes on the effects of punishment on crime rates. He headed the piece: ``Does crime pay? Not if criminals do hard time''. I urge members to get a copy of this article.
Mr. Barnes wrote that in 1994 University of Arizona economist Michael Block and researcher Steven Twist compared some victimization rates with imprisonment rates from 1960 to 1992, a period of 32 years. They found that the ten states which had the highest imprisonment rates experienced an 8 per cent drop in violent crime during the period under study. In contrast, the ten states with the lowest imprisonment rates saw their violent crime rates jump by 51 per cent in the same period.
Very clearly incarceration does work to reduce crime. That does not mean, as members opposite keep claiming, we need to lock up everybody. Obviously we need to use common sense. If a person who commits a minor crime or a robbery could be put on electronic surveillance and be permitted to stay at work, supporting his or her family, that would be much better than locking up that person. However, if a person is a danger to society they really should spend a little time behind bars, away from society.
In 20 minutes or so we will know for certain whether victims' rights will become a reality in Canada. At that time the bells will
ring, we will have a vote and the members who support victims' rights will be on the record.
I hope the Minister of Justice takes the issue seriously. When he votes in favour of the motion, as he said he would, I hope he takes it seriously. When the issues goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to draft the victims' bill of rights I hope he will enthusiastically put his weight behind the bill. I hope he will enthusiastically contact the appropriate people in the provinces and work with them to put together a workable victims' bill of rights.
I congratulate my colleague for bringing this subject to the House today. I support the victims' bill of rights. I hope members of the House will consider what I have said about the cause of crime and how, if we would place a little concentration on that aspect, we could probably reduce the need for the victims' bill of rights.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest things that occurs in our country are these debates. It is always good to have points of view from all sides and not simply a narrow point of view.
How does the member explain the demo../graphics? I understand that a lot of the reduction in crime in New York state is because many of the young people who were committing crime are now much older and when there are population shifts crime decreases. I do not know if we can attribute that to putting a lot of people in jail.
Who does he think are the people who put graffiti on walls? As I understand it, they often come from upper and middle class families. It is a highly sophisticated operation. They get away from their parents and they play games with the police. The kinds of people my friend is talking about are not necessarily the kinds the general population thinks.
(1810)
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that maybe the reduction in crime in New York was due to the fact that the criminals got older. That is a very amusing way of looking at it.
Actually, if were just people getting older, it would be a bit difficult to explain because on the subway the drop in crime rate occurred in one year. In New York in five years robberies were down 75 per cent, serious felonies were down 64 per cent. Over a one year period in New York there was a 31 per cent drop in murders. I do not know whether these criminals are aging at 10 times the rate of everybody else, but I am surprised they were reformed so quickly in one year.
Another point the member raised was who puts graffiti on walls. I do not know why he said it is the children of wealthy families who do this. What difference does it make who the criminals are? I could not care less and I am sure most people in Canada could not care less whether criminals come from wealthy or poor families. If they are criminals, they are criminals. Saying we will not touch them because they are from a wealthy home or because they are from a poor home is a ridiculous way to approach crime.
If someone is putting graffiti on a wall they should be appropriately treated. That means taking action which discourages them from ever putting graffiti on a wall again.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under cover of a motion that is, after all, fairly ordinary, we immediately recognize the hon. members' pet themes: young offenders; licence to kill-it is rather odd to hear that in Canada; violent crime; shocking statistics; example setting sentences; jailing people is never enough; the length of sentences, lock them up for as long as possible, get rid of them.
I think the discourse of the Reformers is rather difficult to follow. These are the same Reformers who voted against firearms registration, when we know that the most violent crimes, the most odious crimes, the ones most often reported in the sort of sensational newspapers the Reformers read, are crimes committed with firearms. It is rather odd coming from members of Parliament, but it is par for the course from Reformers. They are hard to understand.
I would like to say to the Reformers that we, in Quebec, looked at these questions at least thirty years ago, and again last year during the hearings on the future of Quebec. People from throughout Quebec came to tell us that in a sovereign Quebec there should be a charter on the rights and responsibilities of taxpayers. It was good for criminals, victims, youth, seniors, taxpayers, the unemployed and workers. We needed a charter that would lay it all out.
It is true that, in addition to rights, citizens also have obligations. This must be recognized, and perhaps put down in writing, if necessary, but it must be done. The first step is to reflect on the question, give the problem some thought. What is not needed is inflammatory speeches and statistics out of context.
That being said, if the hon. member wishes to give it the time, and that is the question, should he not be thinking about prevention and rehabilitation, with due regard for jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously completely satisfied that there are no crime problems in Canada today, no crime problems in his riding. His wife, his children, his friends and family are completely safe on the streets at night. There is no graffiti in his riding. It sounds like he should start advertising a big tourist trade there: come to the safest place in Canada, no graffiti, no crime, nothing to worry about, we are in
paradise. It is not like that at all. I can see that it is a complete waste of time trying to work on changing his opinion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood
Zed-154
Guay
Kraft Sloan
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pomerleau
Rideout
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
(1845)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the amendment standing in the name of Mr. LeBlanc (Longueuil) at second reading of Bill C-31.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, perhaps the House would give its unanimous consent that all members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House. Liberal members will vote nay on the amendment to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yea on the amendment to the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that most Reformers will vote yes to the amendment to the amendment, except those who might wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP in the House today vote yes on the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-118
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous consent, I believe the House would be disposed to taking the vote on the previous motion and applying it, as is, to the motion presently before the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 47.]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous consent, I believe the House would be disposed to take the vote applied to the previous motion and reverse the result and apply it to the motion presently before the House.
(1850 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)