Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1995

Supply

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

moved:

That this House condemn the government for failing to make progress in reforming the criminal justice system in terms of introducing measures to ensure that the rights of the victim are protected and that these rights supersede the rights of the criminal and in terms of changing the name of the week of November 19 to 26 from Prisoners' Week to Victims' Rights Week.

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time. It is an honour and a privilege to lead off the debate on this Reform motion.

On March 17, 1994 I had the pleasure of participating in our first debate in the House on victims' rights. The example I will use comes from my home province of Saskatchewan. It illustrates the government's preoccupation with criminals' rights rather than

victims' rights. It is the case of Gregory Fischer, a convicted cop killer. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years.

Fischer had just applied for early release under the Liberal government's faint hope clause, section 745 of the Criminal Code. Mrs. Marie King-Forest, the wife of RCMP Constable Brian King, had to fight hard for her right to be heard at these hearings. She had the support and sympathy of many friends, the police, the public, the media and many MPs in the House.

How did the Liberal government respond to this one victim's lonely struggle? What was her family's reward for reliving the nightmare of her husband's mindless murder by two cold-blooded killers? The Liberal government rewarded Mrs. King-Forest with a small change to Bill C-41, giving victims the right to introduce a victim impact statement in the judicial hearings that decide to release these killers early. The court rewarded Mrs. King-Forest's efforts by cutting two years off Gregory Fischer's sentence. That is Liberal justice.

The Liberals are poised once again to drag Mrs. King-Forest through the same ordeal because now Darrel Crook, her husband's other murderer, is applying for early release under the same Liberal loophole in the Criminal Code.

If the Liberals had accepted our amendment during the debate on Bill C-41, section 745 of the Criminal Code would have been repealed and Mr. Crooks and the hundreds of other killers who were serving life sentences with no chance of parole would have served their full sentences. If our amendment had been accepted, Mrs. King-Forest and her family would not have to endure another senseless judicial hearing.

Under a Reform government, when the court says no chance of parole for 25 years, that is exactly what the heartless criminal will get. If do-gooders are concerned about killers' rehabilitation, let them play their games after the full sentence has been served. Certainty in sentencing, protecting society and giving the relatives of the victims some peace and closure are more important than letting a killer back on the streets a couple of years early.

Everything our party has done with respect to the criminal justice issue has been governed by our fundamental principle that the rights of the victim should supersede the rights of the criminal.

During the debate on Bill C-37, the Young Offenders Act, we proposed changes that would better protect victims rights. We proposed changes that would place more emphasis on victim compensation as part of the sentencing. We proposed that the parents of young offenders be held legally responsible for the crimes committed by their children, if it could be demonstrated that the parents failed to exercise reasonable parental control. Under these proposals parents would be required to compensate victims for property crimes committed by their children.

Unfortunately, the Liberals ignored our advice and recommendations. They voted against our amendments and against giving victims more rights than the criminals.

During the debate on Bill C-41, the sentencing bill, Reformers proposed changes that would ensure victims were protected. We proposed that victims be given the right to express their views on whether the use of alternate measures were appropriate for the crime against them. We proposed measures which would ensure sentencing would be proportionate to the gravity of the criminal conduct and to the actual harm done to the victim. We proposed changes which would give victims the right to give verbal victim impact statements.

As stated previously, we proposed the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, which would ensure killers stayed in jail for the full term of their sentence. For Reformers, life means life. Unfortunately, the Liberals ignored our advice and recommendations and voted against our amendments and against giving victims more rights than criminals.

During debate on Bill C-45, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Reformers proposed changes that would give victims more rights. We proposed amendments that would ensure victims received direct financial compensation from the offender's income while incarcerated. We also proposed that violent criminals be denied parole and statutory release thereby protecting the rights of victims to life, liberty and security of the person.

We proposed that criminals who commit criminal acts while on parole or conditional release be sent back to serve the full sentence of their crime and then the full term of the sentence of their second offence. Two plus two is four consecutive sentences, not concurrent.

To protect victims of child sexual abuse, we proposed a child sex offender registry and that this registry be made available to police investigating a child sexual offence. We proposed that all persons convicted of sexual assault would serve the full term of their sentence. Once again, the Liberal Party ignored our advice and recommendations and voted against our amendments and against giving victims more rights than the criminals.

Reformers have gone to great lengths to introduce and enhance victims rights every chance we get, but the Liberals simply ignore them. They do not seem to get it. They seem locked in the Liberal thinking of the 1970s. Liberal ideas are socialist concepts that have failed and failed miserably. Reformers give their ideas freely because they have come from the common sense of the common people.

The Liberals across the aisle seem to ignore these ideas at their own peril. In the next election common sense will prevail and common people will only re-elect members who best represent

their views in the House. That means voting the constituents' wishes and not the Liberal cabinet's wishes.

When criminals are arrested, the police read them their rights. Victims are never informed that they have rights. They are treated just like another piece of evidence. If a criminal has rights then so must the victim and if the victims have rights, should they not also be entitled to know what those rights are?

I have been working on a list of victims rights since the day I arrived on the Hill. Here is what I have come up with so far. I do not know if I will be able to finish the list, but this will give an idea.

Victims have the right to be informed of their rights, to be informed of services available, to be informed about the investigation, to be informed about the court proceedings. They have the right to receive notice of any hearing and have a right to receive notice of the release of an offender.

Victims have the right to legal counsel, the right to be heard by the crown before the trial, a right to be heard in the judicial process, a right to have their case prosecuted and a right to prompt disposition of prosecution. They have the right to restitution from the offender, and a right to prompt return of private property. Victims have a right to privacy, a right to protection from intimidation and a right to defend themselves, family and property. Victims have a right to exercise all of these rights.

Now that we have an idea what victims rights are, it is time for the federal government to start codifying these rights and working with the provinces to build legislative guarantees and administrative mechanisms to ensure that victims can properly exercise these rights.

There is a cruel irony that we are having this debate this week, for November 19 to 26, 1995 has been proclaimed by the Liberal government to be prisoners week. The Liberal prisoners week clearly demonstrates where this government's priorities are.

Do members know that there is no week of the year, not even a single day of the year dedicated to the victims of crime? We have a week dedicated to prisoners, but not one for their victims.

The federal government has proclaimed a week for brotherhood and sisterhood, a week for waste reduction, a week for international archives, a week for dental hygiene, a week for disarmament and on on the list goes. There is a week for earth and a week for professional secretaries but there is no week for victims of crime. It is time to correct this colossal oversight. I urge members of the House to support our motion to declare this week victims rights week.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today.

We are making every attempt to reflect exactly what happens in the Liberal government's agenda concerning victims. We want to reflect that the government's failure is in effect a failure to address the rights of victims.

I am going to demonstrate that with a small story. When I raise these stories in the House of Commons, I am accused at times, in fact a number of times by the minister of immigration as picking out and isolating certain cases which are not really reflective of what happens in Canadian society. That is a lot of hogwash. The fact is that the kind of case I am going to talk about this afternoon happens virtually every day in Canada.

I was in a hospital about 11 weeks ago and I met a lady who was quite despondent. She was crying because her 19-year old son Allen had been hit by a car at an intersection. He is in Royal Columbian Hospital. He had broken legs, a broken arm and his pelvis was broken in seven places, I believe. His head was basically crushed. He has a 20 to 25 per cent chance of living. Allen's mother Debbie does not believe that the system looks after her as a victim. Her husband Allen senior, feels the same way. I asked her to explain what happened.

A young offender stole a four by four truck. He drove it through the streets of Surrey, British Columbia, and toppled the four by four truck over Allen's Fiesta.

Right away, the young offender was read his rights and I will read those in a moment. He was whisked away. The other young fellow who was with the young offender was let off. He was only an accomplice sitting in the same vehicle they stole.

Mr. and Mrs. Wayne asked the crown prosecutor to make sure the guy who was charged with eight counts was sent to adult court, just like the Liberals said would happen. They also asked to be informed of any plea bargaining that took place. Guess what? Plea bargaining took place and they did not know it. I found out about it.

Of the eight charges, five were dropped in the plea. Three of the minors were presented and brought forward. Why the minors? That is obvious. Why was it so fast? It took about five or six weeks to run this young offender through from the time of the accident to sentencing. Five weeks is almost unheard of. The reason in all likelihood is that the young offender would have been charged with manslaughter had young Allen Wayne died. That is why they rushed him through, which is another protection for the victim. Now what happens?

Let us go to the sentencing. What does the judge give him? This is where victims and parents do not understand what is wrong with this Liberal government. This guy gets 15 months open custody, go home. He gets three years prohibition from driving. However he is already on prohibition from driving and gets charged with that count. Prohibition from driving means nothing to this fellow. What does he get for prohibition from driving? He gets one day concurrent open custody. One day. What is being told to young

offenders here? He just about killed somebody-he may die yet-and for driving while prohibited he gets one day.

This happened. It was not dreamed up. The Waynes have a right to feel the way they do because the laws, the rhetoric and all this hogwash which is brought into the House by the Liberal government is nothing more than that. It is rhetoric and hogwash. Most victims, if not all of them, know that. The government will not go very far pushing hogwash.

Let us hear what is read. I asked the police for this recently after watching the television show "To Serve and Protect" one Sunday night. During the show a lady was sitting on the street crying and bleeding. The police had the guy who obviously did it and were reading him his rights. She was sitting there unattended.

The police said he was being arrested for whatever he was charged for. "It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. A legal aid duty lawyer is available to provide legal advice to you without charge and can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number". The victim was sitting on the street bleeding and crying, wondering what rights she had. Very little.

We will present some victims rights shortly. We will see if the government has the courage, particularly the backbenchers, to adopt some of those rights. My guess is they will not. They will find some small thing in the victims bill of rights to oppose it thereby throwing it out.

How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Three and a half minutes.

[An hon. member]

Too many.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Good. Too many, he says. That is what is wrong over here. We have too much time to talk about victims rights. That is what is wrong with the Liberal Party.

Victims should have the right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any victim services available. Is that too much to ask?

Victims should have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including but not restricted to location of the accused from time of arrest, 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, parole dates and on and on it goes.

All information is to be made available on request. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with people having those rights today? Bonnie Lucas in my riding would say: "That is what I wanted when my estranged husband came home and burned our house down with our kids in it. We just escaped from it".

All she asked the parole board was: "Would you mind telling me when he is getting out, because he is going to come after me again?" That is all she asked. What happens? We find out he is out living very close by, and on and on it goes.

Victims should have the right to give oral and written victim impact statements before sentencing, at any parole hearings and at judicial reviews. What is wrong with that?

Victims should have the right to be informed of details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the defence. Allen and Debbie Wayne are appalled, as everybody should be, that this young offender had five of the eight charges against him dropped conveniently. He was out on the street the next day while the police were still filling out their forms.

Victims should have the right to know why charges were not laid if that is the decision of the crown or the police. So often we hear they are going to lay some charges but no charges come. They wonder why. It happened in my office. My secretary had her house ripped off three times in a row. She did not know why charges were not forthcoming. To this day she still does not know, except we hear these guys are into bigger things: "You are kind of a zero and we are after the bigger stuff". She does not know why charges were not laid yet they know who did it.

Victims have the right to protection from anyone who intimidates, harasses or interferes with the rights of the victim. I can speak to that one with Joan Cave who was sexually assaulted. The guy was sent into Vancouver remand, writing her threatening letters from remand while we paid the postage. Surely there is something better we could do.

The government has been an absolute disaster on criminal justice programs.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's discussion. Simple solutions for complex problems seems to be the agenda of the Reform Party. If we have problems with taxes, flat taxes will solve the problem. If we have problems with debt, just cut government in half and they will al go away. If we have a problem with the criminal justice system, rename a day, rename a week; that will make it better.

The reality is the problems with crime in this country are deep seated. I do not hear the Reform Party talking about how to solve the real issues of crime in our society.

I have some statistics on violent crime in Canada which include all categories: crimes of violence, property crimes, Criminal Code offences, drugs. From 1991 to 1992 there was a 6.3 per cent reduction in total crime. In 1993 there was a further 5 per cent reduction in crime. In 1994 there was an almost 5 per cent reduction in crime. Remarkably these are periods of a Liberal government. During the entire period of time this government has been in office crime has been and is being reduced in Canada.

This will not make headlines in local newspapers but the reality is crime is being reduced. I know the hon. member on the other side does not want to hear that, but these statistics are factual.

I will address what I consider some aspects with the problems of crime in our society. We have gone through a whole generation of young people whose only access has been the electronic media. Often the only babysitter of choice for a whole generation has been the electronic media, the television. We have glorified crime on television and a lot of these young people today cannot distinguish between pretend crime and real crime.

How do we want to address these real factors? The government, through the CRTC, is now trying to find ways to use the V chip to take violent acts in programming out of the home environment and allow parents to have the ability to filter out violent programming within their houses.

The hon. member is saying the Liberal government is doing nothing. I think this is a very profound thing which affects over a long period the attitudes and conduct among young offenders. Just by doing away with the Young Offenders Act we will not do away with crimes by young offenders.

It is time the Reform Party started talking about real problems and real solutions instead of just saying hang them and they will go away.

I wish the member would address some of those real problems.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I read seven solutions and within each one there were other issues. It has taken us months and months of research and some guy stands up and says we have simple solutions and he does not hear how Reform will solve problems. The members on the government side are not even listening to what is being said. That is because the front bench tells says: "We will do what we want and you guys will be told how it goes".

What makes me really sick about all this is to have somebody from that side roll out the demographics, roll out the statistical data, to tell us it is a 6.3 per cent reduction crime and then a 4.9 per cent. One of the national parole people phoned me one day.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member had five minutes. Surely I can get-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sure the hon. member realizes that the debate time is 10 minutes and questions and comments are 5 minutes. You have 30 seconds left.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the House, if this member gets five minutes-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Durham had four minutes. You have been speaking for 30 seconds and you have 30 seconds left.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Thanks a lot. When I get calls from the parole board saying that we have an 87 per cent success rate, I say that is nice, it has a 13 per cent failure rate. They had better think about this over there. It is the 13 per cent who are coming through the doors. It is the 13 per cent plus their families who are worried-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has made some interesting allegations which I do not think are quite fair. The government has done a great deal in the areas the member mentioned with respect to victim impact statements. Recent amendments to the Young Offenders Act require victim impact statements. Under section 745, statements from victims are permitted and encouraged. The judges are to request statements from not only the victims or the families of the victims in this case but friends and neighbours of the victims.

The parole board now has to seek out statements from victims. It must give victims an indication of when someone is to be released who may endanger that person. That was not the case before but it has recently been the case. To my knowledge it is being implemented by the parole board.

There are improvements being made, in particular in the areas the member mentioned.

The assertion that there has been no attention paid to the role of victims is not quite fair. I wonder whether this assertion is not based on confusion about the purposes and principles being applied in criminal justice interventions.

Surprisingly, until recently no such statement existed in the Criminal Code. This situation was at odds with the degree of attention that we pay in Parliament to matters relating to tax,

international trade and unemployment insurance. It is at the stage of sentencing that the criminal justice system most consciously and visibly expresses its denunciation of behaviour; its attempts to deter or incapacitate people from further wrongdoing or when it orders reparation or redress for harm done or sets in place measures to bring about the rehabilitation of offenders.

Parliament's role to date in this process has been too often limited to setting maximum penalties for specific offences rather than dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process. It was clearly time Parliament put its collective mind to describing the kind of criminal justice system it wants to forge for Canadians.

This occasion was given to us in the sentencing bill, Bill C-41, introduced by the Minister of Justice. Of all the representation we receive, the most heart rending, as all members would agree, is the representation from victims. Victims of crimes often feel their immediate emotional, financial and physical needs are not being addressed.

The criminal justice system may appear at times to be overly concerned about the court process and the punishment of the offender and insufficiently concerned about victim needs.

Parliament has had the opportunity in this session to debate an important bill touching several aspects of the way victims are treated within the criminal justice system. With the sentencing bill, Bill C-41, Parliament had for the first time an opportunity to address the purpose and principles of criminal sentencing. The bill brought together the purpose and principles of sentencing, procedure and evidence and the various sanctions the courts may impose in a form that represents the collective view of Parliament and which touches on many issues of vital importance to victims.

Let me give some examples. Bill C-41, recently passed in the House, specifies that if an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate it will be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. The statement specifies that if an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or other similar factor, the court shall consider that the motivation be an aggravating factor.

Numerous recommendations have been made respecting breach of trust for offences involving violence against women and other vulnerable persons, including children.

A 1993 survey by Statistics Canada demonstrated that almost one-half of women reported experiencing violence during their lifetime by men known to them. In too many cases positions of trust were exploited, for example by parents against their children or by a physician against his or her patient.

In 1984 the Badgley committee called for the protection of children from persons they already know and may trust. Bill C-41 states that where there is evidence that the offender in committing an offence abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, it shall also be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.

All these changes respond to concerns raised by community groups, victims, and others about hate motivated violence and the plight of victims.

Bill C-41 took other important steps. The statement of purpose and principles specifically indicates that objectives for sentencing include the provision of reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders in acknowledgement of the harm to victims and to the community. It goes further. Specific provision is made to ensure that any information provided by victims is considered during hearings held under section 745 of the Criminal Code.

A new set of measures respecting restitution, developed co-operatively with the federal government and our provincial colleagues, is set out in the bill. A priority for restitution is set out in the bill. If a court finds it appropriate to award both a fine and restitution, the priority shall go to restitution.

The House added a provision as well respecting restitution, stating that in the case of bodily harm or threat of bodily harm to an offender's spouse or child, the court may order restitution for expenses incurred by that person as a result of moving out of the offender's household, as well as for temporary housing, food, child care and transportation. Provision is made to ensure that restitution orders can be enforced by the civil courts.

The Criminal Code will specifically state that any restitution ordered by a criminal court will not limit the victim's right to sue for damages in the civil court.

The House of Commons participated in an important debate involving the status of victims in the criminal justice system. Significant changes were brought to our criminal law, aimed at improving the situations of victims in the system. The government and the House are concerned about victims and have demonstrated that concrete action at the legislative level is a priority of the government.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have difficulty trying to relate to the government that the legislation it plays with is not a full implementation of what is necessary.

For example, when the Young Offenders Act was changed in the House we said all along that the government was not changing the law to suit the real world out there. We wanted to change a number of issues. That did not happen. Many of the victims rights groups out there said time and time again that the government was too soft on its legislation. Yet government members stand in the House, as

my colleague did just now, and say they are working on it and it is coming along.

This has been a long time in happening. I want to give some idea of the frustration that abounds. For instance, when we debated Bill C-45 we asked for the some issues to be addressed. My colleague from Wild Rose and I stood and put a number of motions to the House that day. One of the motions would have provided for compensation to victims of crime and for medical treatment for victims of sexual assault to be paid by the perpetrator. That was voted against and defeated by the government. We also asked that there be no provision for statutory release for violent offenders, and that was defeated.

The government might ask what violent offenders have to do with victims rights. This has a lot to do with victims rights. Dwayne Johnston is a good case in my town. In The Pas, Manitoba, he was convicted for stabbing a 17-year old lady 56 times. He was sentenced to life, with eligibility for parole in 10 years. It is six and a half years later, and guess whose community he is in. Mine.

We are asking the government to carefully consider a lot of tough legislation that has to be put in place. It should not stand in the House of Commons and say that it is working on it or or that it has come 20 per cent of the way, that life is long and that it has a long time to do this. That is not what we are asking about. The government has to take the bull by the horns and deal with it.

We asked to ensure that criminals serve their full sentence if conditional release is revoked or suspended. If they are doing time, get out on parole and commit another offence, it is revoked; they do their full time. That was turned down by the government.

I do not happen to think those are unreasonable requests. Yet time and time again in the House we hear that there cannot be an agreement between Liberals and Reformers because we are on the tough side of it and the government is on the liberal side of it.

The people who really count when we are asking for victims rights are the victims and the non-victims out in our Canadian society, the potential victims. Those are the people we must look after today.

Finally, I have had several discussions with private companies that build and operate prisons, and it is no coincidence that they are moving into Canada. They are doing that successfully. The reason is the confidence has gone in the government.

Why can the government not take another step forward, get tougher on these laws and not stop with this point of view in the legislation?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says he does not want to hear about things the government is working on.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

I did not say that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

May I ask that responses be addressed through the Chair.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

We have to be able to say what we are working on. It is important that as part of the answer it be perceived that the government is working toward further solutions. A lot of the areas relate to provincial jurisdiction such as maintenance orders and matters of family law.

Also, we have done things with regard to the Young Offenders Act. We have said that with respect to young offenders we are making more information available. We have said there will be access to victims and they can present statements. We have said that we will allow people to use information from criminal cases in civil cases. We have done an awful lot, and the member should recognize that.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have found the exchange very interesting this afternoon. Like other members, I have been working with young people all my working life. I sense that this is very pertinent in terms of where we are now, where we are going and where we have been.

I had the privilege of attending the conference in Cairo in May of this year on the treatment of prisoners. This brought together 143 countries from around the globe, representing all cultures and all components of society. The feeling I came away with, and which was articulated directly by some European countries, was that they expect to have no prisons in due course. They are working toward that objective in terms of treatment of offenders. They are putting in place other strategies. They sense and we agree that there will be resulting benefits. I am sure the articulation by the justice department and my colleague will also do that.

We have some pilot projects taking place in the country right now. In Manitoba there is a victim services program, which commenced about five years ago. It offers assistance, psychological and in some cases financial. More important, it offers counselling services for people who have been victimized by various parties in society.

I do not subscribe to the lock them up and throw away the key approach, as some members do, in pursuit of increasing public safety. This is more likely to increase public risk when prisoners finish their sentences and return to the community. Evidence from the United States in those states that have instituted very simplistic and punitive based treatment such as California shows there was a rise in crime rate, not a decrease. I suggest to parties that subscribe to those views that maybe there should be a re-examination of the data as well.

My colleague from Durham put forward statistics in terms of the drop in crime rate. I think the information he provided to the House is very accurate. I too have viewed those stats.

The hon. member's concern for victims of crime is admirable, but I must say that I find the phrasing of the motion a bit unclear. He suggests that more needs to be done to protect the rights of the victim. He goes on to imply that one way to achieve this protection is to diminish the rights of the offender. There are several problems with this assertion.

First, we should ask whether there is a necessary trade-off between competing rights. Is justice better served by somehow reducing the rights of an accused person? The motion does not specify where rights are objectionable. The emergence of the victims rights movement in Canada is one of the most important criminal justice trends we have seen in the last 20 years. Yet I doubt that any victims organizations in Canada would advocate eliminating the right of an accused to a fair trial, the right to due process, the protection of habeas corpus or the protection of an accused against self-incrimination. Do I need to remind the House that there are rights guaranteed to all Canadians under sections 7, 10 and 11 of the charter of rights and freedoms?

I will not dwell on the matter of comparing the rights of the accused to the rights of the victim, but I do suggest that the motion misses the mark. I believe a more constructive approach, simply put, is to determine where and how the victim should be involved in the criminal justice process. The concept we should embrace is access to justice for the victim.

At what point in the criminal justice process does the victim deserve to have input? Should the victim have input into the police investigation, to the trial of the accused, at the sentencing stage or later at the parole decision making stage and finally when the offender is released from custody?

If we can provide the victim or the victim's family with the appropriate access to the criminal process in a timely fashion then maybe we can be a little less concerned about who has more rights.

Let us examine the progress that was made over the last two decades both in terms of the general recognition of the needs of victims and specific measures.

Much of the policy and the programs dealing with victims derived from a report by a federal task force on justice for victims of crime in the early 1980s which offered 79 recommendations to both levels of government for improving social, criminal justice and health responses to victims of crime.

In 1985 Canada co-sponsored the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. This document soon became the basis for a unique Canadian statement of principles. This statement was endorsed by the federal government and the provinces and territories in 1988. It has provided a reference point for provinces to develop their own policy and legislation on victim's rights and most jurisdictions now have victims oriented legislation. It is important to note the provincial perspective since the provinces' responsibility for the administration of justice means that all access to justice issues are under federal control.

Progress continued during the 1980s and in 1988, Parliament passed Bill C-89 which amended the Criminal Code in several relevant areas. For example, the code now provides for protection of the identity of the victims and witnesses of sexual offences and extortion offences. The law also makes it easier for victims of property crimes to prove ownership and the value of stolen goods.

Perhaps most important, the law now provides for victim impact statements. Section 735 permits provinces to determine the form for victim impact statements in their jurisdiction. In effect, this provision creates flexibility by allowing police based victim witness service programs to generate victim impact statements or alternatively crown or court based services as appropriate.

In my view the victim impact statement is a crucial element in sentencing. It is appropriate that the Criminal Code not only provides for such formal statements but allows the court to consider any other evidence concerning any victim of the offence for the purpose of determining sentence.

The motion argues that there has been little recent progress in advancing victims rights. I would conclude the opposite. Bill C-41 passed recently by the House contains an amendment to the Criminal Code stating that the court shall consider the victim impact statement. This mandatory requirement consolidates the role of the victim impact statement in the sentencing process.

While we are on the subject, please note that the victim in this context is broadly defined so that where the victim himself or herself is deceased, any relative of that person or anyone who in law or in fact is responsible for the custody of that person, or for his or her care or support of that person can present the victim impact statement and it will be considered. This is a significant improvement.

There are other measures in Bill C-41 that will benefit victims and keep the focus and the impact of the crime on the victim. The new section 726.2 requires a court when imposing a sentence to state the terms of the sentence and the reasons for it and to enter those terms and reasons in the sentence.

I conclude at this time and welcome any questions.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member receive any letters from victims across the country asking for improvements to the system? I would like to know how many he receives. We have about 500,000 now in storage ready to pass on to the Minister of Justice. They are all crying for changes to make things better.

Is the member aware of a 2.5 million signature petition calling for a pile of different changes? Is the member aware of the hundreds and hundreds of other petitions around calling for these changes?

Last, but not least, is he aware that there are literally thousands of people who belong to victims' organizations? Do you know why they exist, Madam Speaker? Because this government is not doing anything. All those people would like to go home, go back to work, get back to a normal life, including the Carpenters of the Carpenter group, the Stu Garriochs of Calgary and the FACT group, the people from the CRY group in Vancouver, the CAVEAT people from all across the land. They are trying to lead normal lives and they cannot because they are victims. They are joining together trying to get some changes.

They are trying to get changes to this warm, fuzzy little Criminal Code that was invented by the Liberals and they have not changed a thing.

Is the hon. member aware of these things? If he is, for heaven's sake why do the Liberals not wake up and do something?

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will respond in this fashion. The approach of the government has been to take under advisement the recommendations that are forthcoming from various groups.

It is a very important process to get that information to the attention of the government. I would think, as my colleague mentioned in his speech, that it is the most heart rending experience as a member of the House to hear some of the concerns that have been raised by these groups.

Let us not cherry pick and only look at the extreme circumstances. I am not alleging that the member is doing that but there are those who look only at the worst case scenario and use that as the reason for passing extreme kinds of legislation.

We have to look at both sides of the issue and the government is doing that.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite in his presentation referred to the idea of finding forms of punishment other than jail to act as a deterrent. He said he is not in favour of this throw away the key approach to the jail system. Reformers are not either.

Reformers have presented ideas that would replace using imprisonment as a deterrent. We have presented many different concepts. Unfortunately I have not seen any of these ideas being picked up by the Liberal Party.

Some of the ideas we have presented are boot camps, public service, which is being used, corporal punishment as a possibility, capital punishment which can act as a deterrent and certainly will prevent an individual from murdering again. These are just some of the things that we have proposed.

We have proposed paying restitution to victims. We have proposed requiring the person who has committed the offence to pay restitution to the victim as a deterrent. None of these have been picked up by the government.

I ask the member for one example of legislation presented by the government which has put in place a deterrent other than jail so that we do not have to have this throw away the key approach to dealing with prisoners.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, but time has just about expired.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I will be equally brief, Madam Speaker.

It would be out of my league to give a long list of things. I will give one example. I am only going back to my high school principal days where we actually had to bring together the victim and the perpetrator, going eyeball to eyeball. It was necessary for that to take place in our community with youth victims.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Québec.

The Reform Party's motion borders on the ridiculous. I am no longer surprised by their manipulation of public opinion. It is pure and simple demagoguery. We have reached a point where their endless interventions are beginning to get on our nerves.