Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1995

Supply

[An hon. member]

Sit down.

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

It is not clear exactly what they want. I am being asked to sit down, but I have no intention of doing so.

Does the Reform Party want to change criminal law and the Criminal Code? Do they want to change the powers of the Minister of Justice, of judges or lawyers? Are they unhappy with judicial

proceedings? Do they want to do away with the presumption of innocence? What is their intent? I do not know.

I would, however, like to draw attention to the Reformers' approach. While I do not disagree with parts of their motion, I am, however, flabbergasted at the back room scheming of the third party. The third party, I repeat. It is important to mention this, because the motion we were to debate is not the one before us today.

The Reform Party, or should I say, the Opportunity Party, wanted to table a motion, not on victims' rights, but on their own status in the House. We are already well aware of the ambitions of the member for Calgary Southwest, who wants to become leader of the opposition even before the Leader of the Opposition has left.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Where is the relevance at this point? We are debating victims rights.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

That is a point of debate, sir.

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

So, Madam Speaker, I continue by saying to you that we have reached the height of hypocrisy. At the last minute, and because of the fact that our leader has not resigned his position, the Reform Party stopped talking about political opportunism and started talking about victims of criminal acts. That takes some nerve. How can we trust a party that is concerned about victims only when its political manoeuvrings do not succeed?

The Reformers often set themselves up as defenders of the weak and of the oppressed when it suits them to do so or, as in this case, when they have no choice. Their chivalry will always depend on how much air time they can get with it. Let us not forget the attitude of the Inquisition Party in the matter of gun control. When the time came to systematically obstruct proceedings both in the House and on the justice committee, the Lancelots of the west became the defenders of native rights.

They contended that they could simply not support a bill that might trample native rights or contravene ancestral treaties. If they think we do not see through their little game, they better think again. We can see them coming a mile off. Today they are proposing a motion on victims' rights, when, not so long ago, they opposed a bill to protect victims.

If they want to talk about victims, let them talk about those who succumb to wounds inflicted by firearms. How can they promote the rights of victims and ignore those who die from gun shot wounds? The statistics on deaths caused by firearms are staggering. In 1991, suicides made up 77 per cent of the 1,445 deaths attributable to firearms. Of the 732 homicides recorded in Canada in 1992, 246, or 34 per cent, were committed with a firearm.

In the last ten years, the majority of homicides were committed with shotguns or rifles. Three times out of four, the woman murdered by her spouse was killed with a shotgun or a rifle.

From 1990 to 1992, in Quebec, 1 293 deaths were attributed to gun shots, an average of 425 deaths annually. Still in Quebec, three deaths out a four that are caused by a firearm are suicides, for a total of about 300 suicides each year. These statistics cannot be ignored.

If Reform members want to talk about victims, they should talk about the ones I just mentioned. If not, they should keep quiet instead of talking nonsense. These far right hypocrites are here only to make political gains. Every chance they get, they tear off their shirts in public in order to attract attention and stand in the limelight.

They should try to emulate the Bloc Quebecois, this mosaic of ideas and talents that, for more than two years, has been fulfilling the double mandate that Quebec voters gave it, that is, to promote Quebec's sovereignty and to act as the official opposition of a government that never stops insulting the intelligence of Quebecers and their legitimate representatives.

While Reform members are revelling in political fiction, we, the Bloc members, are getting ready to pursue the goals that we have set for ourselves five years ago, that is, to consolidate our political strength in Ottawa, around Quebec's interests alone, in order to dispel any ambiguity and to support Quebec's march towards sovereignty.

The motion put forward by the Reform Party invites us to condemn the government for two reasons: first, because it supposedly failed to make progress in reforming the criminal justice system in general; and second, because its criminal legislation presumably favours the rights of the criminal over those of the victim.

What I find shocking is that this motion is a perfect example of disinformation. This is a good way to exploit public resentment. The motion before us simply reflects the nightmares of an extreme right cut off from reality.

This motion is a mishmash of reactionary preconceived notions. They might as well blame the government for winter arriving a little early this year.

According to the third party, the whole criminal justice system should be reformed. Does the Reform Party at least know how? Does it have any alternatives to offer? We all have complaints about the justice system, of course. It is one thing to say that it is flawed; it is another to state that the whole system must be reformed without proposing any alternatives.

As everyone knows, I have always fought for the rights and protection of victims. I have already suggested to the House that victims should be given a much greater role in our judicial proceedings. I have already submitted that the victims should be represented by lawyers, produce their own witnesses, examine and

cross-examine crown and defence witnesses, plead on the evidence, suggest sentences or participate in negotiations; in short, they should take part in the whole judicial process and even be allowed to appeal any ruling.

That is an alternative. Those are concrete solutions. We must start thinking about this and come up with serious proposals instead of a botched motion that amounts to a vague criticism of the whole justice system and the supporting legislation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hubert for her excellent remarks. I appreciate the support she shows for the government in this debate.

I would like to ask her a question which pertains to her remarks about sovereignty, the role of the Bloc and the direction in which her party is going.

In the context of sovereignty and in the context of the motion before the House, in her attitude toward sovereignty, would she recommend that individuals born in Quebec who commit major crimes be incarcerated only in Quebec or should they be put in jails across the country? Is it a federal thing or a separatist thing for her, the incarceration of prisoners who are born in Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is serious in asking me that, but I will answer any way, because his concern seems genuine.

There is no doubt that, upon achieving sovereignty, Quebec will look after its prison population, like any sovereign country. Quebec, as a sovereign country, is not different in that respect from any other sovereign country.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert. I shall set the sovereignty issue aside, since, as can be expected, we disagree on that point.

I wonder if she would not agree with me that it is somewhat ironic that the Reform Party would come and talk to us about victims and what not on the very day when a gun control bill is being debated, and could even be passed in just a few hours in the other place, to use correct parliamentary terminology and be in order, that they would raise this issue today, knowing full well how many victims guns have made, not only in our country but also south of our border, where, admittedly, there is hardly any gun legislation.

Is it not-how could I put this, again, in parliamentary terms?-less that honest on the part of the hon. members of the Reform Party to address this whole issue of victims of violence without mentioning that they are the ones who moved and continue to move heaven and earth to prevent the establishment of gun control across Canada until now and who lobbied certain Conservative members of the other place about this?

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

Madam Speaker, of course I agree with what the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is saying, because that was precisely my point.

Of course, any discussion about victims must include gun victims. And of course, the Reform Party completely ignores them. I also agree that, soon, in less than an hour in fact, the other place will be voting on Bill C-68.

I will go and see how the matter is settled in the other place and I hope that it will not have to be debated all over again in this House. As far as we are concerned, I think that it is clear that every conceivable concession and compromise has been made, ultimately leading to the passage of Bill C-68. I hope that the bill will come back unchanged and that there will be no need to consider it again.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the comments of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

She touched very briefly on the rights of native communities. I was wondering if she would reflect on the rights of the Inuit people who reside within the province of Quebec. Does she believe they have the right to self-determination? Does she similarly believe that they could also be a nation within the definition of that word? Do they have the right to secede?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I strongly question the relevancy of those questions to the motion we are debating.

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

You are quite right, Madam Speaker, this question has nothing to do with the matter in hand.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that, when I mentioned aboriginal people earlier, it was in reference to the position the Reform Party had taken, again, during the gun control debate. I simply made a reference to them earlier.

As for the question per se, I think it might be answered in a different setting.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, although I find the motion proposed today farfetched and not really in line with the Reform Party's position on firearms, it does at least

afford us the opportunity to address and reflect upon a significant social phenomenon: the victims.

Where there is a victim there is usually crime, violence, or at the least a socially unacceptable act. People can also be victims of unfair policies, stifling economic situations, unattainable job markets.

Societal values and our attitude towards the way people treat each other are changing. Today's definition of "victim" therefore differs considerably from what it was, say, fifty years ago.

I shall speak particularly of women as victims, since women are my primary concern, given my portfolio as status of women critic.

This morning I leafed through a most interesting book, the Traité des problèmes sociaux . This treatise, published under the direction of a number of eminent Quebec academics, covers a multitude of topics related to our society. Looking through the table of contents I was struck by the innumerable types of victims there can be within a society.

Among the subjects covered were: occupational diseases, mental illness, alcoholism and other addictions, STDs and AIDS, crime, prostitution, pornography, poverty, unemployment, racism, homelessness-and these are but a few of the topics in the

Traité des problèmes sociaux.

You can see then, and this is what I wanted to talk about, the unbelievable number of social and personal situations that can "create" victims, if we can use that verb here.

Of course, women are not the only victims of poverty, unemployment, racism. They are, however, most often the victims of domestic violence, prostitution and pornography. The victims of certain problems are almost always women, because of their gender, along with children.

Moreover, problems related to unemployment, illiteracy and poverty affect women differently, because of their family responsibilities and society's perception of their role within it.

Even governments are not immune to prejudice. We need only think of this government trying to calculate benefits paid to women based on family income. This is the best example of the victimization of women because of their role within the family.

As for the notion of victim, Denise Lemieux traces its evolution, in the context of spousal abuse. She writes, in the above-mentioned text: "What stands out, if you look at this over several centuries, is the major attitudinal and legislative change regarding the wife beating. Tolerated in the seventeenth century, sometimes even glorified by the popular culture of the time as a manly thing, and by the law and the religion of the time as a paternalistic punishment for the wife, children and servants, violent behaviour gradually became a reprehensible thing, as principles of democratic government began to spread".

Principles of democratic government. So, there seems to be a connection between the principles of government and the concept of victim. This is interesting. One such principle, affirmed by the Canadian and Quebec charters, provides that men and women have equal rights.

When equality is denied, whether because a man beats his wife, or because a government pays smaller benefits to a woman than to a man, that woman becomes a victim. When a government tolerates the fact that members of its army organize parties to celebrate the killing of 14 young women, all women become victims.

So, the concept of victim is related to a certain vision of society. Everywhere, our governments have officially proclaimed a vision of society in which women have the same rights as men. We will have to recognize that women are victims whenever equality is not respected, whether in the family home, or in the policies and practices of the government.

Those in power will also have to concentrate their energies on eliminating the inequalities between men and women. Our aim is to have fewer and fewer victims or none at all.

Until then, our efforts must go to re-establishing a balance between victims and those responsible for situations creating victims, at whatever level.

Let us go for openmindedness, and let us make sure, as leaders, that we provide our young people with positive role models. Let us work to provide women with equal opportunities in all settings. Let us eliminate social, economic and political inequality between men and women. Let us make men understand that discriminatory behaviour is completely unacceptable-at work, at home, in associations, in the courts of justice and in government offices.

Let us put our fine words into practice. This is surely one way to ensure victims' fundamental and democratic right to equality and quality of life without violence.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak on this issue. I am certainly pleased that the warm and fuzzy questions asked by the Liberals to the warm and fuzzy Bloc members regarding law and order are over with. That was difficult to take.

I would like to quote a few statistics I have picked up myself with regard to what the hon. member from the Liberal Party stated a while ago. I am going back to 1984. The rate of violent crime since 1984 has increased 49 per cent. The rate of sexual assault has

increased 8 per cent annually since 1984. Assaults accounted for six out of ten reported violent incidents in 1994.

Consider that since 1984 when the Young Offenders Act was introduced, crime has gone up by 140 per cent. Members over there stand on their feet and tell us how much better it is getting because the crime rate went down 3.2 per cent or 5.9 per cent or whatever from one year to the next. It is not getting better. There are a number of incidents we could talk about which reflect this.

When are we in the House going to realize there are victims? Guns do not make victims; killers make victims, in case members opposite have forgotten.

The people who were victimized close to Montreal recently by young offenders with ball bats provide an example as do George and Tom Ambas from Scarborough, Ontario, who lost a brother in their store to young offenders with knives. We do not need to talk about what weapon is used. We need to talk about the fact that there are victims because of killers.

In the Reform amendments to the legislation we attempted to incorporate those things that were suggested to us by victims through their petitions and letters. We listened to Canadians and we tried to put their wishes into the criminal agenda through our motions.

For example, we tried to get Bill C-45 amended which would allow victims to be paid out of inmate funds. There would be mandatory restitution. All of the things we put in were geared toward improving things for the victim. Not one member in the House voted for those amendments, except for Reform Party members. All the Liberals said no and all the Bloc said no to things like mandatory restitution. We were trying to do something that would make it a little easier for the victims.

A lady in my riding was raped. She happened to be a former student where I taught. The perpetrator was identified by her, picked up at breakfast and was out on bail by noon. Is living in fear following that rape fair to the victim, knowing that the perpetrator is still on the loose? If we arrest violent offenders, surely we can keep them in jail. Why would a victim stand up and cheer any system that would let the perpetrator out only a few hours after the crime? Somebody explain that to me.

In the case of Ann Marie Bloskie, her killer made lots of advances toward her and she always refused. Her killer tried to force her into sex. When she fought back he crushed her skull with a rock and then he sexually assaulted her. He went home and slept. The next day he returned and further abused the body. Then he buried her.

This killer loved violent, sexually explicit porno videos. He showed no remorse for the crime. He had deep seated psychological problems that would require life long treatment, said the psychiatrist. This crime happened just a few weeks short of his 18th birthday, so the judge said it was in the best interests of the murderer to be tried under the Young Offenders Act. There was no mention of the victim, no mention of the family.

Her killer is now nameless. He is now walking the streets because all he got for that crime was three years. After three years he is back on the streets but nobody knows for sure who he is. The parents of the victim were not notified that the killer was released.

Fixing those problems is the kind of thing that makes plain, ordinary common sense. That is what is on the agenda of Canadians. It is on the Reform agenda because it is what Canadians want.

Why is having a binding referendum for capital punishment on the Reform agenda? Because it is on the agenda of Canadians. That is why. In polls all across the land, 70 per cent of the people have indicated that is what they want. If it is on their agenda, it is on the Reform agenda. It is too bad the Liberals do not listen to the people in their ridings.

Things get worse. We talk about victims. I really get worried and upset when I see some of the things that have been produced by the government. I know some Liberals were visited this very day by a group who are quite concerned that there is an organization putting pamphlets in the schools which promote anal sex as a method of reducing violence and pregnancy. I looked at the little booklets and guess who prints them and pays for them? The taxpayers of Canada pay for them, compliments of this government's health department.

Members sit over there and laugh. I hope they laugh when their grandchildren come home with this kind of garbage. I hope they can laugh then. I cannot laugh when this happens and I will not laugh. I think it is ridiculous and it is a shame. They know it is happening. They see it happening. It is being printed by the Canadian health department. If members have any doubts, they can come on over and I will show them.

Those are the kinds of things Canadians are telling their MPs. They do not want it because it is creating more victims and causing problems. I do not want it either but if we try to do something about it, those on the other side are overcome with warm, fuzzy feelings. It is always the criminal, the criminal, the criminal.

I cannot believe that grown men and women would allow those kinds of things to happen. I cannot believe that a colleague of mine, who taught in a school just as I did, would find that an acceptable piece of junk to come into the building. I know he would not.

The trouble is that the justice system is absolutely not addressing anything which is causing victims more grief. They could do it if they wanted to.

Christine Silverberg, the Calgary chief of police, has written: "Dangerous violent criminals should never be released". I agree. "There should be a victims bill of rights". I agree. "Victims are the most neglected group in the legal system from beginning to end". I agree. "Victims should be involved in every government decision dealing with their assailants". I also agree with that.

When is this government going to wake up and listen to the people of Canada, listen to what the petitioners are saying and listen to what their letters state which I know they all receive?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that the constituents of Winnipeg North in addressing this issue have not only called to tell us about their concerns for safety in their homes and on the streets but they have also shared solutions.

One of the important things my constituents have told me is that we should address the fundamental causes of crime. That is just like preventive medicine. Unless we address the root causes of crime we may not totally address the issue.

I am proud to say that in my constituency of Winnipeg North the MLA for The Maples in my riding has now established the Maples Youth Justice Committee. The MLA for Inkster has established a similar organization, as has the MLA for Kildonan. I have met with all of them.

What specific initiative has the member taken in his own riding to address the root causes of crime? Does the Reform Party acknowledge that prisoners week is an international religious event that includes victims, families and communities as it addresses the issues of the victims and the prisoners? Does the Reform Party not acknowledge that the victims of the misuse of firearms, for example the relatives of the victims of the massacre in Montreal, were correct in asking for gun control? If that is so, where does the member's party stand on this issue?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I object to any kind of a week that is named prisoners week. If this week was intended to honour victims then it certainly is not named right. The first thing I thought of when I heard we were having national prisoner's week is good old Clifford Olson, good old Karla Homolka and good old Paul Bernado. That is exactly what crossed the mind of most people in my riding when they phoned me and said: "What in the devil is prisoner's week?" I said: "I do not have any idea at all. I just heard it was announced". They do not have brains enough to at least name it right.

Now they are going to defend it by saying that what they really meant was this and that and so on, but it sure did not come out that way. If you are to have something besides honouring those kinds of individuals then say so and name it properly.

Let us go to the second question. You must have not been listening, sir, when I told you about these pamphlets that are getting into-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Address your questions through the Chair, please.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The hon. member must not have been paying much attention. I have been asked by the people who have brought all these materials to me to question the government as to why the health department is funding those kinds of documents that lead to nothing but trouble, that lead to crime. A root cause. It is called morals, dealing with the morals.

When you bring it to the government, it tries to defend it. If it can defend it, that would be one thing, but it cannot. It has had its opportunities to defend it and it cannot. Even backbenchers would not support some of the garbage that was going on. Of course they get punished for that. That is the rule over there: listen to the boys on the front line. They do not have enough guts to stand up on the back row and take their own stand.

I do not want to get into this great gun debate once again. We have gone through that so much. Guns are no different from any other weapon. They cause problems. The victims are victims regardless of why or how. If any member could show me that the registration of a gun will save a life at the hands of a criminal, I might support it. I do not think anyone can show me.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, the debate today, for Canadians who are following it, is on an opposition day motion. This is a day when an opposition party has an opportunity to set the agenda for debate in the House. Reform has introduced for debate today a motion first of all to discuss the lack of progress being made in reforming the criminal justice system. Second, we refer in our motion to another opposition day motion we had about a year and a half ago on the same topic:

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 victims.

Here we are again a year and a half later with the same concerns. As we heard from my colleague who just spoke, these are very strong, serious concerns. These are not matters we take lightly. They are matters we keep hearing from our constituents and other members of the public that they want to see dealt with. They are saying the government is not dealing with them.

A year and a half ago we urged the government in debate, which we were able to introduce, to do something. A year and a half later we are making the same request, the same appeal to government. You wonder why.

In our motion we urged the government to do two things. One is to introduce measures right now to ensure the rights of the victim are protected and supersede the rights of the criminals. We are also asking the government to change the name of this week, November 19 to 26, from prisoners week to victims rights week.

Reform's position is very simple. We say the whole priority of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens and that should come ahead of the protection of the rights of criminals.

The state exists to protect the lives and property of citizens. That is the reason we organize. That is the reason we have institutions of society, so we can live in a civilized manner and can respect each other's rights, respect each other's safety and each other's lives.

If we are to do that as a state, we have to make law breakers afraid of breaking the laws and afraid of what will happen if they violate the rights of other people. It would not be too strong to say that one of the main purposes of having an organized society and an organized government is to make law breakers afraid, to bring fear of law breaking into our society.

We have to ask ourselves does our society make law breakers afraid? I do not think there are very many Canadians who would answer that question in the affirmative. We have had many examples brought up in the House over the last several months. Law breakers commit horrendous crimes and are right back out on the street living a normal life while the victims and their families have torment, grief, upset, pain and agony. Yet criminals and law breakers have every protection, every consideration, every possible assistance and comfort extended to them.

Our whole society, our whole approach to the criminal justice system in this regard is totally on its head. That is why we have the strong concerns of Canadians continually being brought forward in this whole area.

What does the government say? What is it doing about the situation? The justice minister is saying all the right things. He is saying yes, we are going to protect victims; yes, we are changing and toughening up the justice system; yes, we want the public's confidence in the justice system.

These are all well and good, but here we have a minister who has had over two years now to do some concrete, strong, forceful, vigorous things to rectify this situation and instead is taking timid, weak, ineffectual baby steps in correcting a situation causing continual concern and grave frustration to our citizens.

The second thing we have seen the government do is get really tough with law-abiding citizens. If they do not register their firearms, they will be in big trouble, they will have a criminal record, but nothing is being done about these weapons which can be obtained illegally and quickly by any law breaker in the country.

We have done so little to make them afraid to do that. We put the fear of God into the law-abiding citizens, who did not need it in the first place, and we have done nothing to ensure that law breakers cannot obtain an illegal weapon in the nearest bar in 30 minutes.

How will this protect our society? The whole philosophy of our criminal justice system is on help, sympathy and support for prisoners and law breakers. It says a lot that this is prisoners week. We have prisoners week but no victims week at all.

I was rather surprised when I read an article about women inmates decrying the lack of rehabilitation programs. A woman inmate was saying: "In two years I got nothing. Nobody listens and nobody cares. I am broken hearted. Inmates are upset with the lack of programs".

There is as real desire to help everyone we can in society to be the best citizens they can. When we have people who have broken the law and violated the rights of others who are outraged and incensed that they are not getting help and support, when the victims of crime are coming in a poor second, surely the attitude we are fostering is wrong. There must be a change very quickly.

I cite one other example that sums up what is wrong in our justice system. We have a convicted murderer who has sued corrections Canada and the Government of Canada for negligence in protecting him. This murderer was convicted for stabbing a 15-year old boy while trying to sexually assault him.

He sued because he was beaten up by other inmates in 1991. This year he was awarded an out of court settlement by the Government of Canada to compensate its lack of protection for him.

I contrast that with the family of a young woman who was murdered by a convicted murderer who in honour of his birthday, a wonderful day, was given a nice pass to go shopping and to enjoy himself. He had been convicted of murdering someone, but of course we do not want to be too harsh on anyone in our society and we would certainly not keep a convicted murderer from having a shopping trip on his birthday.

This convicted murderer went out on his birthday and gave himself an even better present than a shopping trip. He assaulted and killed a young woman. The system again failed to protect someone, this time an innocent young woman, not a convicted murderer.

The family of the young woman naturally made an appeal for compensation to the Government of Canada. Where has that appeal gone? For six years there has been absolutely no offer of compensation.

It is incumbent on us to get serious about turning our justice system to the protection of the citizens and innocent people.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of my favourite poets is Shakespeare. One of the soliloquies from "Macbeth" talks about sound and fury signifying nothing. We have a lot to learn from Shakespeare because talk is cheap and action and hard work are the real tests.

When we talk about being concerned about victims we have to listen to victims when they come before us. This is a day when in the other place we will have a vote on gun control.

I remember as vice-chair of the justice committee the victims coming before us on gun control, the victims groups saying how badly they needed the legislation. I remember the suicide experts coming before us saying how badly this legislation was needed. I remember the women's groups coming before us saying how badly they needed this legislation. There is work to be done.

We have done work in the government. We have talked about balancing rights. We do not put one right above another when public safety is the issue, and that is the issue. It is not whom we rank in order. There is a realistic need to address the problems in society.

The party opposite thinks the way to address problems is to single out notorious, terrible events. These events are terrible and there are great losses. However, there is no ownership on caring for victims in society by any one of the parties in the House. We all care about victims in society.

The difference is that when we care, we roll up our sleeves and do some real work. We look at real facts. We voted for the legislation that puts gun control in place because the victims asked for it. We voted for the legislation on sentencing because it gives an ability for the victims to go to the courts to get compensation. We go and we get victim impact statements at hearings.

The Reform Party can find some little place in these pieces of legislation where they do not care about those bills and they vote them down. The victims count. CAVEAT met this week in Hamilton, a national organization, and where did they rate the provinces that take the attitude that is closest to the third party? They rated them as a d in Alberta and a d in Ontario. Where did they rate our minister? They rated him up there because he has the fortitude to stand behind a bill that will do something for victims. They just do not care.

What you need to figure out here is who is really working. Who is working when we have victims of misuse of firearms? Who is working when we have victims of family violence? I remember comments on December 6 last year from the other side. They have no understanding of family abuse.

We have bills that bring sexual offenders now to the ends of their terms. We have improved the Young Offenders Act and we will do more. We take DNA evidence. They came alongside on that, and that is good. Maybe that is a real vision for the future, looking at a bill and making sure it works and helping us implement it.

The Reform Party did support the drunkenness defence bill, but today they like to forget that we did that bill. That helps victims.

I wish I had 20 minutes, because I have a lot more to say on this issue. Behind the scenes we will do the real work and not just push the trigger buttons.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to hear the passion with which the member opposite commits to helping victims. I would like to give her and her government suggestions as to what we could do to increase the rights of victims.

First, we could give them a right to restitution from the offender. Second, we could give them a right to prompt return of property. These are rights they do not now have. Third, we could give them the right to be informed of services to help them in the trauma they have experienced. Next, we could give them the right to information and notification in a whole range of areas, which I would be very happy to supply to the member. We can give them a right to be heard by the crown and a right to be heard throughout the judicial process.

We could give them a right to privacy, a protection from unnecessary invasions of privacy; a right to refuse to be interviewed by defence counsel; a right to waiting areas in the court buildings that are separate from those used by the accused; a right to be free from intimidation; a right to have a prompt disposition of prosecutions; a right to be informed of victims' rights; a right to an explanation of their role and the scope and progress of the proceedings.

There are a whole range of areas where we can help victims in very practical ways.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member's time is over.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, this month marks the second anniversary of the period during which it has been my privilege to serve the Prime Minister and the government as Minister of Justice. I can say that during that time there have been no experiences that have left deeper impressions on me and there has been no work that has been more important to me than those occasions on which I have met with victims of crime, spoken to family members who survive others who have died as a result of

crime and heard from them about their perception of justice and the justice system.

I refer to meeting with Priscilla de Villiers, whose daughter Nina was murdered and meeting with Chuck Cadman in Vancouver, whose son Jesse was murdered. Priscilla de Villiers reacted by creating CAVEAT, which is now a strong national organization standing for the rights of victims and drawing the attention of Canadians, including governments of all levels, to the shortcomings in the justice system. Chuck Cadman created the organization called CRY, in which thousands of people participate actively for constructive change in the justice system.

I have met with Rita Jervis, a woman from the Maritimes, whose husband was shot and who herself was seriously injured. She survived that attack to devote her energies and her efforts to improving the justice system.

I met with the parents of the young people murdered at the McDonald's restaurant in Cape Breton. I heard from them about the tragic and everlasting sadness and suffering that is the result of that dreadful crime.

I met with Stu Garrioch and his wife in Calgary, whose son was killed in crime.

I met with Margot B, the courageous woman from Quebec who campaigned across the country for changes in the system as a result of her victimization of sexual assault.

I met with Jay Danelesko in Edmonton, whose wife Barb was murdered in the middle of the night in their home. She died in front of their children.

I met with Monica Rainey, whose own son, a toddler, was the victim of sexual molestation. She turned her energies and her extraordinary talents into efforts to create ways to protect other children from that kind of victimization.

I met with Steve Carpenter, who lost his daughter in a dreadful tragedy in British Columbia.

I met with Morris Rose, whose son died a victim of violent crime.

I met with Tom Ambus last week in Toronto, whose brother was brutally stabbed to death on the floor of Tom Ambus' store.

It is said that victims are too often forgotten, that victims are the orphans of the criminal justice system. I stand in this place today to say that those persons and all the other victims with whom I have met have left too deep and indelible an impression on this Minister of Justice ever to be forgotten as I approach the issues in my portfolio, ever to be forgotten as I bring forward proposals for change, ever to be forgotten as I work to develop the policy of the government toward criminal justice.

I shall never forget as I do my work the part they play and the part they have played, not only through the suffering they have endured through the awful loss of loved ones, but also through the way in which they have helped the police in the investigation of the crimes, how they have had the courage to testify in the prosecution of those responsible, how they have devoted their energies afterward, notwithstanding their personal pain, in efforts to improve the justice system, working constructively for change.

Since I took up my duties as Minister of Justice, we have tabled several bills aimed at improving the criminal justice system for the benefit of Canadian society as a whole and more specifically for the benefit victims of crime.

I believe the changes we have made have improved significantly the circumstances for victims in the Canadian system of justice. I point to Bill C-41, which for the first time sets out in the criminal law of this country in statute the principles and the purposes of sentencing, including the obligation of the criminal justice system to provide reparation to victims of crime.

Bill C-41 specifically provides that the court will consider as an aggravating circumstance that someone was victimized by reason of a breach of trust, by reason of violence by a man against a woman in a domestic context, or by reason of hatred based on the personal characteristics of the victim. They are all on the bad list.

Bill C-41 also contains changes in section 745 of the Criminal Code to ensure that the surviving family members of someone who is murdered must be heard from by the court when an application is made for permission to seek early parole under section 745.

Perhaps most importantly for present purposes, Bill C-41 also provided for much strengthened provisions for restitution. I listened to the hon. member opposite describe the urgent need for avenues of restitution for the victims of crime. Bill C-41 brought together significant improvements, which were combined in that bill to provide that from and after the date of its proclamation the courts will be empowered to order, even without the victim asking for it, appropriate restitution. The victim may take that order, register it in the courts in the same manner as a civil judgment, and it can be enforced in the same manner as a civil judgment, taking the responsibility for enforcement off the shoulders of the victim and putting it where it belongs.

In Bill C-42 the government proposed changes that are now in effect in the Criminal Code of Canada to provide that peace bonds,

restraining orders made by the courts to keep threatening persons away from their potential victims, can be made on application by police officers instead of by the potential victim himself or herself, to relieve them of that obligation, to make it that much easier for them to have that court protection.

Bill C-42 provided dozens of ways to streamline the criminal justice system for the benefit of victims, including, for example-I offer this only as an example-that those who have lost property in crime may establish ownership of the property for the purposes of the prosecution simply by swearing and filing an affidavit rather than having to take the time and trouble to appear in court personally to establish that technical proof.

In Bill C-72 we expressly provided words in the Criminal Code that will bring home the personal responsibility of those who intoxicate themselves voluntarily and then commit a crime of violence involving the general intent of harming others. The preamble of Bill C-72 is express testimony of this government's concern about and commitment to victims of crime. Bill C-72 stands as a profound and important statement from this Parliament on behalf of victims that those who intoxicate themselves voluntarily and then harm others in those circumstances will be held accountable and cannot rely upon their own self-induced drunkenness or intoxication from drugs as an excuse. That is action on behalf of victims.

In Bill C-37 the changes to the Young Offenders Act expressly provided for the first time for victim impact statements in court proceedings involving young offenders. In the second phase of that work involving the young offenders, which was commenced by the justice committee of the House this week, I expressly asked the committee to look at different approaches toward juvenile justice with specific reference to the role of the victim. I asked how we can have that act improved so as to more directly involve the victim through reparation, through confronting the offender, through restitution, through community work, so that people who are the victims of crime can have some sense of justice out of the process. I expressly asked the committee to work with me in designing changes to achieve those objectives. I share those objectives with the members opposite. We have the same goals in mind. I have invited them this week as members of the committee to work constructively with me toward the attainment of these goals.

In Bill C-104, which received the agreement of all parties in the House, we introduced for the first time an express provision in the Criminal Code empowering police officers to go to the courts for a warrant to obtain bodily substances for testing for DNA, important forensic evidence either to establish guilt or prove innocence. That is a step forward for victims. When combined with the further legislation the Solicitor General of Canada is preparing to establish a data bank for DNA samples of those convicted of crime, we will have available to the authorities in this country an invaluable

resource to detect and ultimately pre-empt and prevent crimes of violence against victims.

I have three more general points before concluding. First, when we speak of victims of crime, indeed, when we speak of violent crimes generally, it is very important to remember that 70 per cent of the victims of crime are acquainted with their assailants. The general impression that some might have that violent crime is confined to the streets where strangers lurk dangerously to assault us, is not right. The vast majority of victims know the person who attacks them. That leads to a related point.

An appalling percentage of crime goes on in the home and involves violence by men against women. It is to that cause, against that kind of crime, that we must also unite in our efforts and in our opposition. Violence by men against women tragically forms too large a part of the crime problem in the country. We must work through the wide variety of strategies available to combat, to reduce and ultimately to end it.

Second, I draw the attention of hon. members to the importance, not just of legislative initiatives but to crime prevention. Because law alone, no matter how much improved by the suggestions made by hon. members, will never, ever be enough to address the problem of crime and community safety.

It cannot work in isolation because it deals with symptoms and not with causes. It becomes engaged when it is too late. The crime has been committed, someone has been harmed and the charge has been laid. Crime prevention is a strategy by which we can take community resources and energy and through linking police enforcement with the justice system, with social agencies, with families, we can do something about crime before it happens.

All across the country as I go from the west to central Canada to the maritimes, I see the energy and the commitment of communities. Instead of just wringing their hands about community safety, they are rolling up their sleeves and doing something constructive about it.

The National Crime Prevention Council created by the government in the summer of 1994 provides the national instrument by which that energy and that commitment can be brought together and focused on that important national objective.

Let it not be thought that we will make ourselves safe simply by ratcheting up the penalties and making the laws more harsh. That is only part of the approach. We must also look at the underlying causes of crime. We must recognize that preventing crime has as much to do with the strength of families as it does with the length of sentences. It has as much to do with literacy as it does with law.

It has as much to do with community co-operation as it does with mandatory supervision.

No one here should think that we are serving victims if we offer them only vengeance. Victims want more than to see the offender punished. That is where hon. members of the third party, in my respectful view, fall short in their approach to this problem. More is required than simply vengeance.

If ever there was eloquent evidence of that principle, it was offered by the family of one of the victims in the Bernardo tragedy. I believe it was the Mahaffey family. When asked about capital punishment, the Mahaffey family said: "That is not our objective. That is not what we are after. What we are after is to make sure that something positive comes of this awful tragedy. What we are after is to make sure that person is put away for life in prison. What we are after is to ensure that it never happens again". That is what victims want and it is toward that constructive objective that we must work together.

A few weeks ago I spoke outside on this magnificent Hill to a rally organized by a group of victims seeking changes in the criminal justice system. I undertook on that occasion to work with them in the name of justice for changes to our laws to achieve the objectives of which I have spoken today. I intend to keep that commitment, Mr. Speaker.

I said earlier that I welcomed this opportunity to respond to the motion before the House today. The government is proud of its achievements because it has a made a concerted effort to approach the problem of crime from various angles.

I am not suggesting that all has been said and done. But I do know that creating new crimes with increasingly stiffer sentences will not solve the problem. Finding the causes of crime is no easy matter. It involves a cause and effect analysis as wideranging and complex as human nature itself. However, to claim that we can solve the problem by getting rid of criminals as long as possible is simply to evade the issue.

Let me close by emphasizing that the motion before the House today is somewhat of a surprise since it emanates from members of the third party. Sometimes the way they express themselves on such subjects, one would think that the members of the third party have a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to the position of victims.

Their position, I am afraid, is hardly that strong. I suggest that their presentation today of this resolution offers somewhat of an embarrassing contrast for the third party. Today, through their resolution and their arguments, they would have us believe that their priority is the rights of victims and the perspective of victims.

Just two days ago, on Monday of this week, a group of victims met here on the Hill. They made a very powerful, a very emotional and a very moving presentation in favour of Bill C-68, urging the Senate to adopt the government's proposals on gun control.

Those victims also have a point of view. The men and women who stood on the Hill on Monday in favour of Bill C-68 are victims too. They want Bill C-68 put in place because they know it is in the best interests of victims and the criminal justice system in this country.

It is the members of the third party who have fought so much against Bill C-68 in the past and continue to do so. Perhaps that is the best evidence of the flawed approach of the members of the third party toward the proposition in which today they pretend so strongly to believe.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech of the justice minister.

A year ago Reformers brought up the same issue, asking the government to be a little more active in trying to protect victims and their rights. For years, the criminal justice system-as a lawyer, he would know this-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 system is built around the criminal. The victim has been generally ignored.

We brought this to the attention of the House. There has been some movement and very little improvement. We want to make more improvement.

If Parliament is intent on protecting society, it should and will have to recognize and codify victims' rights. As a party we have pushed four issues: official standing in court cases and parole hearings, which the minister has not invoked; mandatory victim impact statements and victim compensation, where there is an opportunity to draw from the criminal himself or herself some compensation, and to recognize that the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the criminal.

Our charter of rights and freedoms in some ways give criminals privileges that are unheard of. We talked a year ago about the 46-year old woman, mother of three children, who was raped by a convict on day parole. The victim tried to get a Quebec court to compel her attacker to take a blood test for HIV but the court ruled against her, saying that the blood test would compromise the rights of the accused rapist.

Protecting the rights of the accused at the expense of the victim of a crime is a crime in itself. Today, we have the Bernardo and the Homolka situation. We have two prisons that are connected by a tunnel-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Will somebody tell the minister it is normally expected that the minister would wait and reply to questions and comments. I thank the minister for coming back.