Debates of April 29th, 1996

Supply

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the victims' bill of rights motion that my hon. colleague is putting forward. It is long overdue.

This all started back in 1983-84 when the Liberal justice minister of the day said that Canadian justice was going to move away from making the victim its primary responsibility and move toward the convicted as their primary responsibility.

This has had a fundamental effect on the mindset of the justice system over the last 13 years. As a result Reform members have had to put forward legislation along the lines of that which my colleague is putting forward, a victims' bill of right. Why? Because the victims of this country have had their rights abrogated by a judicial system whose interest should be to protect them first and foremost. That is no longer the case. Countless numbers of victims have had their rights subjugated to the rights of the convicted.

Here are some pathetic examples. Imagine if you will you are person who has been raped. You have no rights whatsoever under the current justice system to know the health status of the person who raped you. You have no rights to know if he is HIV positive. You have no rights to know if he is carrying sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhoea, chlamydia and hepatitis. Those rights do not exist. This is one of the things that my colleague and we in the Reform Party wish to change.

Imagine if you will that your child has been violated by a pedophile or that a loved one of yours has been raped. Currently that rapist or pedophile can come an live right next door to you if he so chooses. That can happen. Do the victims have a right to know about this? No, they do not.

In my riding I have had a situation where a serial pedophile who raped and violated little children more than 1,000 times came to live in the neighbourhood of its victims. These victims were absolutely beside themselves with fear and abject terror.

Why do we not have a justice system which protects these individuals from having to endure a situation of terror and fear after they have already been violated by an individual? That is fundamentally wrong and bespeaks poorly of a justice system that is meant to protect these individuals.

It is fundamental that these victims have the right to know where and when the people who perpetrated these violations on them will be and where they will live and their whereabouts. As we all know, there is no treatment for violent sexual predators. There are many attempts but there is no effective treatment. Therefore victims have a right to know where these individuals are.

The third is victims' impact statements. It must be the right of the victim to give a victim impact statement orally or in writing if they so choose. It is not a choice but it should be their right to have this. The courts must understand what it was like for that person to endure the crime perpetrated on them.

Fifth, the victim must understand what is happening in the court proceedings. They must understand what is being plea bargained away, why it is being plea bargained away, and what deals are being made between the crown and the accused's defence. It is very important for the peace of mind of the victims that they understand the whole process taking place if they are to feel justice is being done.

Sixth, it is very important that we err on the side of the protection of the individual in society at large. We have to move away from what we have said before, that the convicted will have our primary focus. The victim must be the primary responsibility of the justice system. That is simply not the case now.

I will give a true life example. There was a young boy in my riding. He was a handicapped child who could not mobilize very well. He was 13 years old. He was sexually assaulted by an 18-year old boy. He was raped. The court case took place. The 18-year old was charged and convicted. The convicted 18-year old turn around and said "I'm a victim because of things that happened in my past". That may be so.

What happened was that the child who was raped did not have anywhere near the counselling, the care and the attention from our justice system and health professionals he needed. The convicted had many times the amount of money in support than the victim. The convicted had the primary focus of the justice system whereas the victim was forgotten. This bespeaks of a justice system that

does not fulfil its fundamental role, which is the protection of society and its members.

It is true that many people who commit offences, who are incarcerated in our prisons have had very serious and very sad lives. Their early childhood development has been riddled with with a great number of tragic and unbelievably terrible things. This is very common. However, one's history does not exonerate one from committing criminal acts today. We can understand what they have done but it does not exonerate them or excuse them from committing those acts.

Therefore we have to take a multilevel approach. We have to protect the victim, as my hon. colleague mentioned so eloquently in his speeches and in his victim's impact statement, which I encourage every member of the House to get a copy of before they vote on it. I also encourage every member to look at new ways we can address the precursors and ask ourselves why these individuals commit these offences.

Many of these individuals have grown up in terrible family situations. We must deal with these situations early on. Children in environments where they are being beaten up and sexually abused are not being given the necessities to build up the basic pillars of a normal psyche. Where those things are absent we must collectively deal with the families to help the children. If the children do not have the pillars of a normal psyche they will grow up to be adults without the pillars of a normal psyche. That will manifest itself in conduct disorders in adolescence and in criminal behaviour in adulthood.

These things can be done without spending money. In the United States some interesting experiments have been conducted. They have looked at inner city school boards where there is a high degree of violence, drop out rates, teen pregnancy and criminal behaviour. They brought the children into the schools very early on, at the age of five or six. Not only did they teach the children their A, B, Cs, they taught the children what appropriate conflict resolution was and what drugs were all about. They learned about self-respect and having respect for others. These are normal pillars of a normal psyche which we all require to function in a caring and functional society.

These are things which the justice system ought to take a look at in conjunction with provincial counterparts, as the Liberal member mentioned. We must work with provincial governments and education departments, which are an integral factor, in addressing these problems to put an end to conduct disorders and violent and criminal behaviour.

It is incumbent on all of us as legislators to put first and foremost the rights of innocent victims in our justice system. The convicted must be taken care of as well, but our primary responsibility is to the victims who through no fault of their own have been violated.

I encourage every member of the House to vote for the victims' bill of rights presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. They will be doing it for themselves, their children and, most important, for Canadians from coast to coast.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the government has taken a significant number of steps in the review of criminal legislation to improve the safety of our homes and streets.

Certainly it is within the discretion of local chiefs of police to indicate to the appropriate people, when considering all the circumstances at their disposal, to release in varying degrees into the community information about the presence of sexual offenders.

The government has made changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to make it easier to keep individuals in custody to the end of their sentence.

The government has also introduced gun control legislation which allows police in appropriate circumstances to remove firearms from a house where there is a threat of use by the perpetrator of a crime or by someone who has made threats.

The minister has indicated that new legislation is on the way to deal with dangerous long term offenders. There is a possible review of the dangerous offender provisions to allow greater latitude or a greater length of time under which a dangerous offender application can be made.

There has been the institution of peace bonds to ensure greater protection for victims of crime.

There is the possible introduction of long term offender designation which would allow community supervision for up to 10 years after release. This is in addition to a number of other steps which have increased the tools of law enforcement agencies, provincial attorneys general to detect and prosecute crime.

We would like to see the hon. member acknowledging the progress by the government, while everyone in the House acknowledges there is still more work to do.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

On gun control, regardless of whichever way we look at this, there will be up to $500 million removed from the functional arm of justice to gun control. There is something called an economic cost. That means that if we are moving money from A to B, we had better make sure we are getting more bang for our buck in B than in A.

There has been nothing to prove that the new legislation put forth will make any difference in crime. There is an abundance of studies showing the exact opposite, that the new changes in gun control will not work.

We in the Reform Party are committed to having good solid gun control legislation which protects individuals and society but we are loathe to support legislation that will make our streets less safe. The gun control legislation put forth by the government had nothing to do with keeping the streets safer but everything to do with seducing an urban population.

On the concept of the police, the police would do a lot more if they were supported by the courts, but they are not. If my hon. colleague would talk to the men and women in our police forces who day in and day out put their lives on the line and ask them whether the courts support them, he will get a very different picture because they do not.

They do not because of the decisions made in the past and a legal morass our judicial system is now under. It is weighted down by a legal morass that prevents justice from taking place. We need to rethink and look at that.

We also have to look at the way police officers are hampered by the legal documentation and paperwork they have to endure in their jobs. It impedes their ability to get their work done.

On the concept of restitution, restitution is not mentioned anywhere. The government has not done anything to deal with restitution to the victims from the criminals.

An important point for many individuals who have had to put restraining orders on individuals who have been hunting them, harassing them, is that restraining orders do not work. They are not enforced properly and we need to take a long, hard look at ensuring our restraining order system will work to protect those individuals being harassed and victimized.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition motion put forward by the member for Fraser Valley West, the victims' bill of rights.

Crime and victimization are complex and challenging social problems. The government believes dealing with these issues requires a thoughtful, informed and long term approach, one that deals with the early causes of crime.

A two-month old baby is left to cry when he needs comfort so that he will not be spoiled. A three-year old girl hears her dad abuse her mom one more time. A pregnant woman has another drink. What do these situations have to do with crime prevention and community safety? As isolated incidents maybe not a lot, but when they represent patterns for these children, the outcome may have an impact on crime and victimization.

Under the safe homes, safe streets initiative, the government formed the Canadian National Crime Prevention Council, an independent council of 25 volunteers from across the country. Its main focus is on the needs of children and youth and its commitment is to crime prevention through social development.

Thanks to the council's work we are discovering some of the links, links between what happens to children from the prenatal stage to six years old and what becomes of them as adolescents and later as adults in our communities. The child victim often becomes the criminal offender. The reasons for this are varied and complex.

We know quite a bit about the childhood experiences of persistent offenders. We want to apply this knowledge to help children and families when they need it most. Poverty can bring with it a host of threats to children, including poor health, high family stress and difficulty forming warm, secure attachments to caregivers.

Risks to a fetus, including fetal alcohol syndrome and low birth weight, may affect a baby's brain development which can lead to hyperactivity, emotional problems and then to school failure, a risk factor in itself of delinquent behaviour. When parents do not get along and are unresponsive or overly authoritarian, children are also at risk. Socially competent children need emotionally available parents.

The community and the broader society in which our children grow can make a tremendous difference, not only in terms of financial support but also by encouraging resilience in high risk children. Resilient children who succeed despite having the odds stacked against them share certain traits. Many of these protective traits result from family and social influences.

Optimism for example has its roots in infancy, in a child being able to count on life feeling good. Competence, another such trait, depends on the support, encouragement and opportunities provided by interested adults. If a parent cannot provide the support, then another relative, a family friend or member of the community can step in and fill the gap.

Although much of this knowledge may seem like common sense, it must not be ignored when we develop policies and programs in response to crime and victimization. The lessons of early prevention are often pushed aside in the rush for harsher penalties for young offenders. There is even a demand by some for more of those charged with non-violent crimes to be imprisoned. This response may reflect our empathy for victims but it does not get at the underlying factors which lead to crime.

What do parents, families and communities need to nurture children in loving, supportive environments? If a child or teen breaks the law, what is the best way to intervene, to repair the harm done to the victim and to prevent a second crime? A victims bill of rights would not protect a child from abuse, provide him with a hot breakfast or a sympathetic ear. The way to prevent Canadians from becoming victims in the first place is to nurture, value and protect our children. For it is the neglected, abused and mistreated child who is most likely to find himself or herself involved in criminal activity later in life, a pattern that can be broken before it is too late.

The National Crime Prevention Council has been working in this vein on a prevention guide book for Canadians. The guide book will explain how crime and victimization can be traced back to childhood and how we can prevent crime from happening in the first place. I am sure that members of the House join me in looking forward to the launch of the guide book at the June Atlantic crime prevention conference in P.E.I. Early prevention is the key.

I am pleased to advise the House and the member for Fraser Valley West that I will support this motion. It is a step in the right direction. However, we must focus on the formative years of our children to ensure they do not reach a state where they are heavily involved in crime.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us an opposition motion from the third party, which reads as follows:

That the House urge the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to proceed with the drafting of a victims' bill of rights, and that, in such areas where the committee determines a right to be more properly a provincial concern-and I emphasize this part of the motion-the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard-and I also emphasize this expression-for a victims' bill of rights.

Victims have rights, victims have needs. If I may, I will use an illustration from testimony I heard before the standing committee on justice from a person who had lost a loved one when a crime was committed. This person did not tell us about loss of income, but rather about her emotional loss. She did not tell us about the criminal aspects involved, but rather about needing the government to offer her support during this difficult time.

This person was the indirect victim of a crime. I am telling this story to emphasize that the victims of crime are not the only direct victims. Sometimes people around the victim also suffer the consequences. The contribution the government can make to these direct or indirect victims is not just legal or financial, but also moral, supportive in nature.

How many times do we see victims or their relatives hounded by the media? What recourse, what protection do these people in their state of shock have to help them hang on to the privacy they need at a difficult time?

These are important questions. Victims and those close to them have rights because they have needs. Now, to meet these needs, to guard these rights, the question is: Who is best placed to do the job?

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of protecting and compensating victims of crime; this is a given. And in Quebec, for a number of years now, we have had legislation that provides this protection and compensation for victims of crime. As I have just told you, in Quebec, the Government of Quebec has legislated this protection, this compensation. Why? Because it is a provincial responsibility.

Because this is a provincial area of responsibility, the federal government therefore has no business interfering. Let us be very clear, then: the Bloc Quebecois is strongly in favour of the protection and compensation of victims, but by the appropriate level of government; and, in this case, it is the provinces. Quebec has been active for a number of years in this area of jurisdiction.

To put it more plainly, the jurisdiction proposed in the motion is not a matter for the federal government through the criminal law, that is section 91 (27), but, rather, concerns property and civil rights in the province, or section 92 (13). Therefore, national standards in this area would constitute flagrant interference in the provinces' exclusive areas of jurisdiction.

You will tell me that that would not be the first time. I am afraid not. In how many areas has the federal government, through its spending authority, interfered? If we look strictly at spending authority, the federal government could begin compensating victims left, right, and centre, first thing tomorrow. In one sense, these people would probably not be upset, but as I pointed out, what is important for victims or those close to them, is less the money than the comfort and moral support.

This person, who went through this unfortunate experience and described it to the justice committee added, and this is important, that a public servant had actually telephoned her the day after reading the newspapers to tell her that the pension cheque of her now dead loved one was already in the mail and that she should take steps to return it. The next day, twenty four hours later.

What victims or those close to them need is not necessarily financial compensation, but understanding, moral support, respect for human dignity, and these are things that the provinces are well equipped to provide. The provinces have all that is needed to do the social work required to ensure the respect of human dignity. I

repeat then, national standards in this area would constitute a flagrant infringement on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

This is not just my own opinion I am stating; on two occasions already the Privy Council-which, as you know, was the level of last recourse at the time, until its abolition in 1949-acknowledged provincial jurisdiction over victim compensation. This is the legal precedent, formed in the past, and formed solidly. It is something already in place, something that ought not to be opened to re-examination and challenge at this time.

In 1920, in its decision on Canadian Pacific v. the British Columbia Workers Compensation Board, the Privy Council acknowledged that, when victims are to be compensated, even if the company in question happens to be under federal jurisdiction, section 92(13) of the Constitution takes precedence and the provincial legislation applies. Now, in 1996, we cannot again question a practice that was entrenched in our Constitution, unless the Constitution itself is laid open to question.

In another decision, in 1937, following a reference on unemployment insurance, the Privy Council reaffirmed the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over victim compensation. This is why-I shall make this my concluding statement-the Reform motion, despite its praiseworthy intentions, runs totally counter to the policy of the Reform Party, which has been calling since it arrived here for greater decentralization of the federal system and respect for the exclusive provincial areas of jurisdiction.

Praiseworthy intentions, but the wrong approach, surprisingly. I would have preferred the Reform Party to continue along its path of decentralization of powers and respect for the jurisdictions of each of the provinces, instead of giving in to what I am sure was a flood of good intentions, and questioning an area of jurisdiction which is clearly provincial.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the comment from the hon. member from the Bloc flies in the face of reality; decentralization on a number of issues from education, to health care, to job retraining and all these other areas we have talked about and have been promoting the idea or suggesting governments look at the British North America Act again and start getting things back in proper perspective and let the provinces look after certain areas and get the federal government to ensure standardization across the county and let the provinces handle things.

However, when it comes to the justice system, to say that although our intentions are honourable in terms of victims' rights, the federal government very much has to be involved in something like this.

It very much has to ensure that no matter where we live, whether it is in Quebec-a great province in this wonderful country where they belong and where this member should stop trying to pull them out of-British Columbia, Newfoundland or anywhere, we need a constitution, a set of laws which applies all across the country. Within the various provincial jurisdictions we then allow for the differences needed to be applied.

We have federal laws in the criminal system and we have provincial laws. Quebec has civil laws as well and we respect that difference based on history. For him to say that although our intentions are honourable we should butt out of the legal system is ridiculous.

This is an honest attempt by our member from Fraser Valley West to look after the interests of all Canadians whether anglophone, francophone or of ethnic origin from any country. It is to look after the victims. That is the point, victims who are, as the justice minister said, orphans of the justice system.

Somebody commits a crime. They are tried and found guilty. The victim is either beat up, dead or suffering physically. Once the trial is over they are forgotten. What we spend money and time and effort on is rehabilitation. Our system of justice is out of whack. The punishment does not match the crime over half the time. The judges have too much leeway. Instead of spending time in narrowing choices, and the House has the right to do that, we waste our time on other measures. We should be concentrating on items like this to ensure we are bringing a balance to the justice system.

This issue of decentralization and victims' rights is something the federal government should very much be involved in.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know this intervention from the Reform Party is very sincere. However, in Quebec for many years we have been doing exactly what the Reform Party is proposing right now. Many other provinces have not done so. The privy council recognizes those powers and has given them to the provinces as per the Constitution

Basically what I am saying is let every province copy the example of Quebec. Quebec is different. Quebec on this subject and on many other subjects has taken the lead in Canada. We were here first, so maybe that explains it. However, if anyone wants to come to Quebec and have a look at how we are doing it, they are welcome. Then they can copy whatever we are doing.

However, do not duplicate once again here in the House with measures that are already implemented and working successfully in Quebec. That would be duplication. That would be spending the public's money unwisely. The intent is fine, but let the provinces do it as Quebec has been doing it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Could the member for Portneuf help me out? Was it his intention to share his time? He has had ten minutes, and he has another ten minute block for his speech.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was my intention, and I thought it had been understood. I see that perhaps it was not. In which case, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Everything is in order. The member for Portneuf used only ten minutes, which is the time allowed.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate on this motion. It asks the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to draft a victims' bill of rights. If the committee determines a right to be a provincial concern, the Minister of Justice would have to initiate consultations to establish a national standard.

The Bloc cannot join the Reform Party in supporting this motion, and I will explain why. However, I would first like to make it very clear that the Bloc Quebecois supports the protection and compensation of victims of criminal acts. This is basic, as my colleague for Portneuf pointed out. However, victim compensation is clearly a matter for the provinces, and the federal government has no reason to get involved in this area of provincial jurisdiction.

This right is a matter for provincial administration of justice. In fact, this cannot be a matter of federal criminal law under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act. It in fact comes under provincial property and civil rights under section 92(13) of the Constitution. I think this is clear.

Therefore national standards in this area would be a flagrant encroachment on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Twice the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the court of final appeal before its abolition in 1949, recognized the jurisdiction of the provinces over matters of victim compensation.

First, in 1920, in the matter of the Canadian Pacific and the British Columbia Workmen's Compensation Board, the Privy Council recognized that, in the case of victim compensation, even if the company involved were under federal jurisdiction, section 92(13) of the Constitution Act applied. This too is clear. The court concluded that the laws of British Columbia applied in the case of victim compensation.

In another ruling in 1937, in the Reference on Unemployment Insurance , the Privy Council reaffirmed exclusive provincial jurisdiction over compensation of victims. Clearly, from these rulings, compensation of victims is a provincial matter. Accordingly the motion by the Reform Party directly contravenes their party policy, which advocates greater decentralization of the federal system and full respect of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

It is surprising as well to see the Reform Party defending victims' rights, when it voted against the bill on gun registration.

The Bloc believes that prevention is the best way to protect victims. In other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as everybody knows.

With its contradictory positions, the Reform Party is revealing the inconsistency of its policy on crime.

You cannot properly defend the rights of victims when you refuse to prevent crime by voting against the mandatory registration of guns, a measure aimed at preventing an increase in violent crime.

Another reason this motion must be rejected has to do with the throne speech. Following the throne speech, the Liberal government made a commitment to stop spending and encroaching on areas under the jurisdiction of the provinces without their approval. Accordingly, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is asked to consider the matter, the approval of the provinces would have to be sought. It would in all likelihood be denied by most of them.

Quebec is the leader with its Crime Victims Compensation Act. This legislation provides for a plan to compensate injured victims of crimes. Compensation is also provided for families of individuals killed. This legislation does not prevent civil law suits against an assailant for material damages or bodily harm.

This act fully meets the necessary objective of compensating the victims of criminal acts, especially since claims for compensation are examined by a commission which will ensure that the amount of compensation awarded is sufficient, fair and equitable.

The provinces have no need of the federal level to administer areas over which they have exclusive jurisdiction, particularly since Quebec's legislation on the treatment of offenders and victims is far more open and far less repressive than elsewhere in Canada. But when there is a desire to impose national standards, not only must the areas in which the standards are to be imposed come under federal jurisdiction, but also the government must have the necessary funds to invest in the undertaking.

At the present time, the federal government no longer has the financial capacity to invest in encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, the financial hole the future generations will have to get themselves out of is due, in large part, to the massive federal invasion of areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

The federal government has used its financial clout to impose national standards on the provinces by sharing program costs. This centralizing trend is running down at this time, simply because of the financial irresponsibility of the federal government, which has sought to add to its power by thumbing its nose at the division of powers imposed by the Canadian Constitution.

In conclusion, it is clear that the federal government has no place in the area of victim compensation. Federal invasion of this area would constitute an unacceptable encroachment into provincial jurisdictions and would run directly counter to the Liberal government's promises in the throne speech.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions. First, I heard from this speaker and the previous speaker about the encroachment of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction. Point 8 of our victims' bill of rights states that if a person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmitted disease, the victim of that offender should be able to find out about that fact. There was rape case tried in Montreal where the victim asked to have the perpetrator tested for AIDS and it was denied under the charter of rights. Yet both the previous speakers said they are doing very nicely and they do not need these kinds of rights.

That is one illustration. I am sure that if I searched I would find a lot more examples of how it is just not being done in Quebec even though it is claimed that it is.

The approach being taken by the member is not a focus on the victims, it is still a focus on sovereignty and separation from the country. Is the member not trying to indicate that legislation that may come from this House would not apply to them because they choose to be another country, rather than concentrating on victims' rights.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that our colleague from the Reform Party is mixing apples and oranges. Nobody is trying to drag sovereignty into this motion. As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois is clearly in favour of protecting and compensating victims of crime.

What we are saying is that the administration of justice comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I will tell him again why that is so. This area of jurisdiction cannot come under the federal authority over criminal law set out in section 91 (27) of the Constitution Act. It comes instead under property and civil rights, which are under provincial jurisdiction, pursuant to section 92 (13) of the Constitution.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the hon. member for Drummond for having grasped the problem. I do not think that Reform has. The Reform Party, and this we have seen in several matters, makes comments, talks about certain things without really understanding the ins and outs of the subject.

Anything concerning the victims of criminal acts, and all of the issue of victims' rights, is the responsibility of the government of each province. If the Reform Party understood this rather important little item, it would perhaps see fewer problems in certain matters, would perhaps accuse us less of talking sovereignty or Constitution, if they at least wanted to respect the present Constitution. That is where one of the problems of the federal government lies, and the Reform Party represents that problem very well, the desire to legislate in areas that do not belong to it.

As I saw for myself when a member of the justice and legal affairs committee where we assessed the Young Offenders Act among other things, we in Quebec are at least 25 years ahead of the Reform Party. I understand that they do not understand that this is an area that does not belong to them, that this is not a federal jurisdiction. If everyone respected the Constitution, the country might not be so deep in debt today, perhaps we would not be discussing the things we are today.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Drummond, perhaps for the benefit of the Reformers, to repeat the extremely important bit of her speech in which she said that Quebec has an act for compensating the victims of crime. I would like her to go over it a bit so that the Reform members might understand what they did not grasp. Now we are giving them the chance to turn to the French channel and listen to the answer they will get.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Crime Victims Compensation Act provides for a plan to compensate injured victims of crimes. Compensation is also provided for families of individuals killed. This legislation does not prevent civil law suits against an assailant for material damages or bodily harm.

It meets the objectives for compensation of victims of crime, particularly because requests for compensation are examined by a commission for victims of crime, which ensures that victims receive sufficient, just and equitable compensation. This is the effect of this law.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address one item in the speech of the hon. member for Drummond. She said the Reform Party is not consistent and is contradictory. It is not really protecting victims and victims' rights because we voted against the gun control bill.

That is a pretty general and blank statement. Perhaps the information she received was ill-informed, much like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is half the time, uninformed and ill-informed.

I want to put on the record that the primary reason this party voted against the gun control bill was because it was an omnibus bill. It confused the punishment for the criminal misuse of firearms which we support. We favoured that part of the bill and in fact we recommended in amendments that it go to five years instead of four years.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Nonsense.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would listen he would also learn from this.

It is the firearms registration portion that we were against and that is why we voted against it. I do not see where we are contradictory at all. We are interested in victims' rights.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

No doubt the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would like to answer but he will have to wait for another time. I am sure he will seize that opportunity.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say this to the Reform member: When you are out to protect victims, you make sure you have the best means of protecting them, and the best way of protecting them is prevention. To my way of thinking, protection outweighs cure.

Reform members opposed the bill on gun control, which, to my mind, is not the way to prevent violence.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Calgary Centre voted in favour of the gun control legislation that this government proposed. I am surprised he is talking from the opposing side about it right now.

There is no question that all members in the House support services to victims and better treatment for victims within the criminal justice system.

I have been involved in a judicial agency, Youth in Conflict with the Law in the Waterloo region. I was involved with a whole series of organizations that dealt with offenders, the community and victims. There is no question as we examine the various programs that are offered in the country that Quebec is very much a leader in the area of criminal justice reform as well as dealing with victims of crime.

When I first became involved in working with offenders in the early seventies it became very clear that for the rehabilitation of young offenders, they would have to face up to their actions. They would have to make contact, where possible, with the people that they victimized and they would have to make restitution.

We have a number of programs in my community. We have pioneered many programs related to the judicial system in the Waterloo region. One of the programs that we pioneered was Youth in Conflict with the Law, working with young offenders.

Another program we pioneered was Kitchener House, a halfway house, so when people were being released from provincial institutions they would be eased into the community. The John Howard Society was active in our community and the Mennonite Central Committee started up the first victim offender reconciliation program back in the seventies. That is where the victim and the offender come together. When they are younger individuals it impresses on them the seriousness of their acts and the fact that there is a person involved who is hurt. From the victim's perspective, in many cases it helps them demystify who the offender is. We try to work out some compensation, fiscal and voluntary, that the offender can make to compensate the victim.

We also recognized that victim services needed to be present within the police department. When victims were going to the courts and facing the trauma that victims face, people would be assisting them and explaining to them how the judicial system, which can be a very complex system, works.

There was also a group which initially got involved because of a sentence handed down to a sexual offender. A grandfather had sexually abused his granddaughter and they felt the grandfather got an inappropriately low sentence. The group started out calling themselves citizens concerned with crimes against children. Initially it was a lobby group reacting against the sentence. The next thing it had become involved in victim services in the community working with children, doing a lot of prevention work. Its members are always ready to respond in case help is needed, be it from the police or from other family members, but they were always there to assist the victim.

One of the troublesome aspects of the present state of affairs in the criminal justice system is we do not do enough to re-examine the way we deal with crime. In many cases we are following a knee-jerk approach, an approach that is being driven by the rhetoric of members of the Reform Party.

We get into a mindset that says we should try to deal with crime in a "lock them up, throw away the key" approach. In my community the victim services program for the police which we pioneered and which was supported by the provincial government, under the Harris government has been cut, slashed. That is for victims' rights. They are the kissing cousins of the Reform Party.

The program for husbands who abuse their spouses, run by the John Howard Society, was slashed to the bone. This program was to stop people from reoffending and to stop further victimization.

The sexual assault program, where community justice initiatives deal with victims of sexual assault, children and otherwise, was slashed by the provincial government. That concerns victims.

The biggest problem is we tend to ape and the rhetoric of the Reform Party apes what is happening in the United States in terms of crime and crime prevention. There is no worse model that we can possibly follow. The Europeans have shown much more effective ways of dealing with offenders which in turn makes the cost of the justice system cheaper and in turn allows funding for victims' services.

The tragedy is that there is not enough funding for victims' services because we are misspending it in the criminal justice system. At the present rate of sentencing it is expected that the population of prisons will increase by 50 per cent over the next five years. What a waste of money when keeping a person in prison costs $50,000 a year.

Let us be very clear when I am talking about people in prison and the justice system, I am talking about people who are property offenders, non-violent offenders, people who could be handled much cheaper in the community, be it through community service, or restitution or probation.

The climate that has been created is that away too much money is being thrown into the imprisonment area and we are doing precious little in the justice area.

I recommend to the members of the Reform Party that they look at the work of the crime community safety council. They might even go back to March 1993 when Mr. Horner, a former RCMP officer, a Progressive Conservative and the head of the justice committee, came up with a unanimous all-party recommendation in a report which would have dramatically shifted the way in which we dealt with the criminal justice system. It would have led to more community prevention and more work with victims.

If there is a problem in our system now, it is that we have not followed up on the recommendations of the Horner commission and the justice committee on this issue. There are many cases in that report of shifting resources to victims, to crime prevention and community safety. There is a rethinking of the way Canadians should deal with the whole issue of crime.

There is no question that in many cases victims have been ignored. I have worked in the system since the early 1970s and it breaks my heart to see victim programs in my community being slashed by the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario. It is the ideological kissing cousin of the Reform Party.

I accept that Reformers are being sincere in what they are trying to do. Please take a look at the justice committee report by Mr. Horner. Look at the cry from police across this country that there has to be a better, more effective way. Let us look to the European models and not to the United States. We know the American system does not work.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today the Reform Party brought forth legislation that would enshrine a victims bill of rights into law in Canada. Today the Liberals brought forth legislation that would enshrine sexual orientation as a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Which of these two issues are the hon. member's constituents and Canadians more interested in having this House deal with? Which of those two issues is more important to Canadians?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not living in a world of either/or. Many things are important to Canadians. I know that 81 per cent of Canadians are concerned that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. A poll has not yet been done in Canada which shows that Canadians condone discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, that does not negate the whole issue of victims which we must address.

I will repeat to the member that I shed tears when I see funding slashed by the provincial government for programs that were painfully developed to nourish community support for victims, victims in my community.

There is no question that I will support the motion for a victims bill of rights, but we have to look at where the money will come from. We will get that money if we make the judicial system more effective. It will not be more effective if we continue with the rhetoric of the Reform Party. We will increase the rate of incarceration in this country by 50 per cent at a great expense and it will not be effective.

I hope the Reform Party members phone their ideological cousins in the province of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government members, to protest the cutting of victims programs. I expect and hope that members of the Reform Party will do that. I look forward to their doing that.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the cost of keeping people incarcerated. Does the member know that in 1989 the bureau of justice statistics issued estimates of how many crimes are prevented when people are locked up rather than walking the streets? Analyst Patrick Langdon concluded that higher incarceration rates between 1973 and 1989

cut the number of rapes by 66,000, robberies by 323,000, assaults by 380,000 and burglaries by 3.3 million.

In addition, in 1995 a Princeton University criminologist wrote that the best available estimates of prison operating costs led him to calculate that imprisoning 100 convicted felons who offended at the median rate cost $2.5 million, but leaving them on the streets cost $4.6 million. It is actually cheaper to keep offenders in prison.

Has the member heard of those statistics?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what comes forward from members of the Reform Party. If their advice were to be followed we would lock up everyone possible and throw away the key. It is because of that kind of attitude that we have picked up on the American model which is very expensive and destructive. It does not promote safer communities. It ends up being very costly and does nothing for the victims of crime.

The conference that was held at the Royal York Hotel in March 1993 brought people together from across the country. Police officers, judges, people in government and people from communities were there. The Federation of Municipalities was there, as well as groups representing victims rights, young offenders and correctional services. They concluded, after looking at all the models in the free world, that the one which worked the best was the European model and the least desirable model was the American model.

The hon. member did not take me up on my challenge when I asked him if he and his party were going to phone the premier of Ontario and say to him: "We do not want you to stop funding programs for the victims of crime in the province of Ontario". That is exactly what is happening in the province of Ontario right now.

We have to pay attention to victims. We have to ensure that the support services are there for them. I hope Reform members will contact the premier of Ontario and say: "We do not want you to stop funding programs for the victims of crime".