moved:
That this House condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim.
Mr. Speaker, while it is a privilege to lead off this debate in the House it is regrettable that it has to be to condemn the government for its inaction to introduce legislation to provide for victims' rights.
For years the criminal justice system has been geared toward the rights of the criminal. From the moment the offender is arrested to the moment of the expiration of the sentence, our justice system is built around the criminal. The victim has generally been ignored. If Parliament is intent on protecting society, it will have to recognize and codify victims' rights.
In all fairness there have been some minor steps in this regard. Some attention is now given to victim impact statements, but the courts generally view them as being secondary to the concerns of the criminal.
An example of this was the section 745 hearing Greg Fischer held in January of this year. Sixteen years ago Constable Brian King of the RCMP was kidnapped and murdered near Saskatoon. The motive of the two killers was simply that they wanted to kill a police officer. In January 1979 Fischer was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.
At the hearing to determine if Fischer could apply for early parole, much was stated about how Fischer had improved himself in prison over the last 15 years. What had happened to the King family over the last 15 years was irrelevant. The King family was not allowed to address the court. It is time to give the victims of crime legal standing at all court and parole hearings.
While there are some other positive developments such as police departments creating victim assistance programs, they are partial measures. Programs such as these usually have to rely on volunteers for staff.
Is it not ironic that criminals receive professional legal advice, professional psychological counselling and education or job training skills all at taxpayers' expense, while the victims of crime have to rely on community volunteers or volunteer support groups for help in dealing with the trauma resulting from criminals' behaviour?
Criminal activity costs everyone, whether or not they are direct victims of crime. It may be easy to see the injuries of an assault victim, but we tend to forget that the Canadian taxpayer is paying for the medical treatment of that victim. Likewise the loss of the burglary victim or a car theft victim is fairly evident, but everyone ends up paying more through higher insurance premiums.
Each year motorists complain about their ever increasing insurance premiums. Over the past five years premiums have increased well beyond the rate of inflation. Much of the increase is due to criminal activity. Vandalism, car theft and insurance fraud account for a significant portion of every driver's insurance premium. Not only do Canada's drivers have to subsidize criminal activity but we as consumers are forced to pay the price as well.
Retailers across the country lose millions of dollars each year to shoplifter and employee theft. These losses are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Not only are Canadian business people faced with these problems but some are being driven out of business by crime itself. Small independent convenience store operators and gas stations located in high crime areas are finding it impossible to get companies to insure them and, if they can, the premiums are unrealistic. It is a shame that some profitable businesses are being forced out of business by crime.
What is the solution to this problem? Let us start by making the criminal pay. Restitution to the victim or the insurance company should be automatic with a guilty verdict.
The cost of crime to society does not end with the direct costs of the victim. The cost of the entire criminal system itself is immense. The costs of policing, the courts, corrections and parole are spread over all three levels of government. When they are combined they are staggering. In this age of fiscal restraint many governments have created user pay systems. It is time to do the same with the criminal justice system: make the criminals pay.
If the government is serious about strengthening the laws to better protect society, it has to accept two basic concepts: first, that the protection of society has a higher priority than the rights of the criminal and, second, that the rights of a victim come before the rights of a criminal.
This philosophy has to be the guiding principle behind the drafting of any new criminal legislation or the amending of current legislation. Without this recognition any effort to combat crime and violence will fail. The problems we have with crime today are not due to a lack of legislation. The problems stem from a principle that places the rights of the criminal above all else.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has dramatically tilted the scales of justice in favour of the offender. The legal profession has created an industry from charter arguments in criminal cases. While this industry may be profitable for the legal profession, it has done nothing to protect the rights and security of society. Criminals are now routinely acquitted because of technicalities raised in charter arguments. How does this protect the average citizen?
In effect the charter has given the criminals more latitude. Recent court decisions have outlawed non-threatening police procedures such as one party consent recordings and the placing of an undercover police officer in a jail cell with an offender. These decisions and numerous similar ones have made it tougher for the police and easier for the criminals. They have given constitutional protection to the rights of the criminals that have done little if anything to protect society as a whole.
The charter of rights also guarantees Canadians the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Yet each and every day Canadians are deprived of these rights by the criminal element in our society.
Ordinary Canadians deserve to have their rights protected more than the criminals do. Those Canadians victimized by a crime deserve to have their rights considered as well. It may take a constitutional amendment at some point but we have to make it clear that when the rights of victims are in direct conflict with the rights of criminals, the rights of victims must prevail.
I believe that the majority of Canadians can accept the premise that criminals should lose some of their rights on conviction. Poll after poll shows that Canadians feel less secure in their own communities now than ever before. We must change this perception. We have to make it abundantly clear to Canadians that their protection is the main priority of our criminal justice system.
It is easy to criticize, it is more difficult to provide a construction alternative. As always my party is prepared to present such an alternative. The first thing we have to do is pass legislation that gives the victims of crime legal standing in court proceedings and parole hearings.
These changes do not infringe on the rights of the criminal but rather provide the court with a clear picture of the result of criminal activity. I would like to think that in many cases, especially those involving young offenders, it would be beneficial for them to hear what the results of their actions are. Even in the case of a simple break and enter, the offender should have to listen to the sense of violation the victim feels. If criminals still have a conscience maybe they can accept the fact that their activity has hurt another person and that it is not just a matter of insurance companies replacing stolen property.
In more serious crimes, it is important for judges and juries to hear the extent of pain and suffering that is being brought on the victim and the victim's family.
While some may argue that this is already in place, my response is that while the victim impact statements are no longer rare, they are still at the discretion of the court. We need to pass legislation that gives the victim legal standing in the process.
Likewise, the same legal standing needs to be provided to the victims in parole hearings. Presently the victim can attend these hearings but their participation, if any, is at the discretion of parole board members. While the parole board members should hear how the criminal has done since his incarceration, they should also hear about the effect that crime had on the victim.
The second major initiative of the House should be to pass legislation that makes the criminal financially accountable for his crime. Once an individual is convicted, there should automatically be a restitution order against the criminal. The criminal should have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.
Obviously there will be cases in which the accused has no hope of ever repaying the entire debt. However if they were required to pay a certain percentage of their income in restitution, there would be that constant reminder of their criminal activity.
Even if criminals are sentenced to a correctional facility and their institutional income is minimal, they should still be required to relinquish a portion of that amount taken in a token bid of restitution. No matter how small the amount is, they should have that reminder of accountability.
At the other end of the scale there are individuals who have been involved in very profitable criminal activity. The illicit drug trade and some commercial crimes are prime examples. Restitution for their crime should go beyond the immediate offence of which they are convicted. While there is legislation in place to deal with the profits of crime, it has not been enjoying the success that it should.
Convicted drug dealers and other well to do criminals should have all their assets seized that are derived from the drug trade or other criminal enterprise. While it would be almost impossible to compensate all the victims of a major drug dealer there should be a formula devised to allocate funds among law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities and a general victim compensation fund.
A few large seizures would go a long way in subsidizing the losses of victims who would have little chance to otherwise receive restitution.
Mandatory financial restitution will in the long term serve two important functions. First it will provide the victims with some financial compensation. If the victim can be made to feel less victimized by this action then that in itself makes the action worthwhile.
Second, restitution may bring a greater sense of accountability to the offender. If criminals are compelled to give up some of their income to compensate their victims maybe they will finally get the message that crime does not pay.
These two initiatives are a beginning that is long overdue. We can no longer ignore the fact that the criminal justice system must officially recognize the victims of crime. It will be a significant step in showing Canadians that Parliament is prepared to make definitive changes to the system.
It is difficult for any of us to ignore a petition that carries two and a half million signatures. The public is demanding change and it is demanding protection. Anyone who ignores this cry does so at his or her own peril.
While I have a lot of respect and admiration for CAVEAT and other victims' rights groups it is a shame that these groups have to be created. The most inspiring leaders of these organizations have invariably been parents who have lost their children to violent crime. It is tragic that so many parents are in this position. I would like to think we could take some action so that their numbers do not expand in the years to come.
In my response to the speech from the throne I mentioned that I had already spoken to parents of two murder victims. I now have spoken to the parents of three murder victims. It does not get any easier. As a parent I can imagine how difficult it would be to lose a child. The pain these parents feel is even greater knowing they have lost a child as a murder victim.
We need to take whatever steps we can to ensure that fewer parents experience this pain. My caucus colleagues are dedicated to bringing justice reforms to fruition. I have also been encouraged by some of the comments and private members' bills from the government side of the House.
I hope that members of all parties can get together to pass legislation to provide society with the protection it deserves. I do not imagine that many of us think it is necessary to cater to the criminal lobby. While I would like to think that the protection of society is a goal that all parties would strive for, I have yet to see any such commitment from the government.
We have received vague promises of new legislation to deal with violence against women and children, yet violence against women, children and men for that matter is already illegal. What we do need is a change in philosophy. It can start with the recognition of victims' rights. If the government fails to recog-
nize these rights it is telling society that victims should remain unseen and unheard.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to stand in the House and congratulate the government for bringing in legislation that recognizes the rights of victims and takes precedence over the rights of criminals.
I see no indication that the government is prepared to take such a step. That is why I stand in the House today to condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, in particular for its allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victims.
