Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member. I was anxious to hear it. At first I was under the impression that she was a newly elected member such as myself who has been here for only a little while. Shortly after listening to the beginning of her speech I began to realize that she was not a newly elected member because she was running on with the rhetoric we have heard over and over from various members who have been here in the past.
It is the same kind of thing we hear constantly. Things are going well. We have a great system. We do not need changes. She was making statements that had nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House but was suggesting that the motion states that a fair trial for criminals should be eliminated.
On searching the motion I cannot see anywhere it suggests anything like that. We are trying to say that in a number of cases, and it is an unlimited number, we have evidence that the rights of the victim are being overrun by the rights of the criminal.
I would ask the member the same question which I referred to earlier. To give a lady in Montreal peace of mind, to give her the ability to continue the healing process she is going to have to go through after being raped a number of times by an individual, she requested the perpetrator be tested for AIDS so she could at least eliminate that from her worries. The courts in our system ruled that the criminal did not have to submit a sample to determine if he had AIDS and the request from the victim was denied.
Had the hon. member been the person to make the choice I would like to know if she would honour the request of the victim and have the criminal tested for AIDS or would she make the decision the court made, that the criminal did not have to submit under his rights under the charter.