Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear members opposite support this kind of endeavour. I have always said that to get a national victims bill of rights it must transcend party lines. Individual members of Parliament must support the initiative.
I have several questions. The first is related to the legal industry in Canada. I have quote upon quote of what the legal industry, in particular lawyers and judges, thinks of victims in this country. I will cite a couple of examples.
Recently in the Bedford provincial court in Nova Scotia Judge Patrick Curran stated: "I am not entirely happy with them". He was referring to victim impact statements. "For the most part I do not think they make an awful lot of difference". That is the indifference I find in the legal system.
This morning I quoted Russ Chamberlain which I will do again for my colleague opposite. Mr. Chamberlain is a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver who said that crime victims want an eye for an eye, that they want someone else to fix their "petty problems", and that their pitch for personal vengeance can "improperly" affect a jury's verdict. He said: "Victim impact statements are just venting the spleen and do not serve justice and should be outlawed, banned completely".
We could go through a litany of quotes from lawyers and judges in this country on victims who seem to be secondary in the process. They seem to be a royal pain to most of these people.
Would the member comment on how the House could pass a national victims bill of rights when much of the problem lies with the legal industry whose members are intent on going their own way without the legislators, without the input from victims and certainly without the guidance from the national House of Commons.