Debates of May 26th, 1998

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

Here is the situation. We have one member who says that another member said something in the House. We have the other member who rises and gives his word that he does not recall having used the word. I therefore accept the member's explanation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having used the word. But if I did so inadvertently, I am prepared to withdraw it. In order to satisfy my colleague, I will not make a fuss over the matter.

[The Speaker]

As I understand it, if the hon. member used the word, he withdraws it. Is that correct?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

Just a moment. The hon. member is here, we have had a discussion and, as I requested, the hon. member withdrew the word. It has been done and I accept the withdrawal. At this point, the matter is concluded.

I will hear other points of order, but I will not hear anything more on this point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot say that he does not remember having said—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

That is all for this point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have two minutes left for questions and comments on the intervention by the hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting debate today on justice issues. During question period we also had a very interesting question and response time from the government.

I wonder if the member for Wild Rose could comment on the response by the justice minister. She was very pleased because she is willing to swear and she can prove, and apparently Statistics Canada will show, that not a single person under the age of 12 was convicted of a serious criminal offence in Canada in 1996, the latest year for which she has statistics available.

I wonder if the member for Wild Rose could describe why she thinks that statistic is so profound.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the answer I heard. What I heard was that no one under 12 was convicted of a serious crime. That is a pretty good statement considering that no one under 12 can be charged. So how can we convict them? But then that is the brilliance of the Liberal government. What do we expect?

What is more important is that there are serious violent crimes committed by people under 12. This government is not willing to deal with that problem whatsoever. It talks about passing it off to social welfare, passing it off to other provincial institutions. It does not have what it takes to do the right thing. It ought to be ashamed of itself.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking the remainder of the time of my hon. colleague for Wild Rose.

I am honoured to rise once again to speak on behalf of the people of Cariboo—Chilcotin and to speak on the official opposition supply day motion:

That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety, as demonstrated by their refusal to: ( a ) strengthen the Young Offenders Act; ( b ) abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and ( c ) introduce a victims bill of rights.

A couple of weeks ago, in my hometown of Williams Lake I hosted a town hall meeting dealing with exactly these issues. Ironically, this was the very same day the Minister of Justice finally introduced her response to the standing committee on justice report explaining her strategy for the renewal of the youth justice system.

Over a year after she promised a swift introduction of massive changes to the Young Offenders Act she outlined a strategy which appears on the surface to make only cosmetic changes to this act, one of which is getting rid of the name. There are many serious things that need to be done. I am sure that getting rid of the name is very important too. This is a name across the country which prompts negative comments and stories of horrific crimes committed by young people who merely get a slap on the wrist for the crimes they have committed.

Over the past five years I have heard my constituents' concerns about the current state of the criminal justice system. These concerns cover all aspects of the system, how violent and repeat offenders are treated in the system, how all too often victim rights are completely ignored, how the current federal government time and again ignores the safety of the average Canadian citizen, how it ploughs ahead with legislation not at all consistent with the needs of those law-abiding citizens who are directly affected by this legislation.

The clearest example that comes to mind is the government's handling of the gun control issue, Bill C-68. This is a bureaucratic mess where the budget was blown long ago. The government's experts are saying the registration system will be filled with inaccurate and useless information. All the while law-abiding citizens will be held accountable for this failure.

The Reform Party has proposed an excellent approach to deal with the complex issues surrounding youth crime. Before I comment on this approach I take this opportunity to thank the chief Reform justice critic, the member for Crowfoot, and his colleagues on that committee for their long and dedicated service to this issue.

Reform's approach to dealing with youth crime has three components. The first component concerns early detection and intervention as an effective means of crime prevention. The second component deals with community based resolutions and sentences for non-violent offenders, and the last component deals with substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Included in the amendments are changes to the age range for those who fall under the act from 12 years to 10 years for the youngest and from 17 years to 15 years for the oldest, as well as the publishing of names for all violent offenders charged as adults.

Our party also proposed that a distinction be made between non-violent and violent offenders. We feel that less serious offenders can be diverted from formal court proceedings and incarceration while at the same time we want to ensure that violent offenders are held in custody.

After she was sworn in as the justice minister last June, the minister stated that one of her top priorities was to reform the Young Offenders Act and that we could expect changes shortly. It is almost a year later and we are told that legislation will be introduced this fall after further consultations this summer with the provinces, the territories and various stakeholders. Although I welcome the federal government consulting the grassroots of our country when changing legislation, there comes a time when consultations have to result in some action, and that time has come.

The justice minister is armed with an extensive report from the standing committee which was tabled before the election call last April. It was accompanied by a comprehensive list of recommendations. She also has the minority report submitted by the Reform Party. It is a thorough report which also provides the justice minister with well thought out and comprehensive proposals to significantly reform the youth justice system. The justice minister also has at her disposal the recommendations of several provinces for reforming the system.

With all this comprehensive information what does the justice minister do? She admits that the current system is flawed and needs to be changed. Did we not know that already? After a year of inaction she introduces a framework with no real specifics, no real details on how the system is going to be reformed and restructured. There are no concrete proposals for change.

The government has proposed to spend approximately $32 million on crime prevention programs, but as we have seen before with this Liberal government it does not have any concrete plans as to who will be in charge of these programs and it cannot provide details on what programs will be available. Included in this mess of disorientation, disorganization and lack of leadership, the minister has also failed to assure the provinces that there will be the necessary funding for any new programming initiatives.

Gauging from the various provincial responses in their own reports on reforming the youth criminal justice system, it looks like the provinces do not share the justice minister's vision. For example, the people of Cariboo—Chilcotin have told me that they want change to the youth justice system that is fair, that works at preventing youth crime and that looks at alternative measures for dealing with and rehabilitating youth who break the law.

On the issue of conditional sentencing, the changes made to section 742 of the Criminal Code in June 1995 under Bill C-41 have made it possible for a variety of offenders to serve their time in the community. This provision has been applied quite liberally. It applies to anyone from those who have committed fraud to those who have committed sex offences. Although the previous justice minister acknowledged the problems with the legislation in allowing certain sex and violent offenders to have conditional sentences, he took no action to amend the legislation. The current justice minister has not taken action on this issue either, despite repeated calls from the opposition and from the Alberta court of appeal. Violent offenders are still being put back into the communities.

Finally I would like to take a moment to comment on the issue of victims' rights.

It has now been over two years since this House passed a motion introduced by my colleague, the official opposition House leader. The motion read 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, the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard for a Victims' Bill of Rights.

This motion received widespread support from all parties in this House: 154 yeas; 24 nays. Since that time it has languished in the justice committee.

Earlier this month the committee finally started formal hearings and will hopefully submit a report to the House sometime this fall.

I am happy that these formal hearings are finally taking place, but I wonder why it took the government so long. I am sure it has heard from many Canadians, as have I, who want the government to move forward on this issue of establishing a victims' bill of rights.

The justice minister of the day was in support of a victims' bill of rights, but what does today's justice minister think?

During her appearance before the justice committee last month she announced a national office for victims of crime to help them navigate through the justice system, but was lukewarm to the idea of a victims' bill of rights.

She said that often these bills are rhetorical and that she was not interested in rhetorical flourishes, but in actually improving the services and programs for victims.

Given the recent proposals by the Minister of Justice, I think she is far more interested in those rhetorical flourishes than she is in delivering on her promises for actual change.

I would like to close by conveying the comments I received from my constituents at the town hall meeting at Williams Lake earlier this month.

Canadians want fair and comprehensive change to the criminal justice system, change not only to provide alternative programs to rehabilitate those young offenders who commit less serious crimes, but also adequate and effective punishment for the more serious offenders.

These constituents call for safe streets and for victims to have as many rights as those criminals who commit crimes against them. Canadians are demanding change and it is past time for the government to listen. It must act with concrete proposals and substantive changes.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker on the content of his speech. I think he makes some very compelling points. He is obviously representing his constituents very well when he makes those points here in the House.

I want to touch on one issue that he spoke of which concerns a rather perverse anomaly that exists in our current justice system. We currently have under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the parole board someone called the correctional investigator; that is, an investigator who acts in the interests of those who are incarcerated. That person is there to represent the interests of the inmate. There is no question that there is a need for that.

However, this is the anomaly. There is no such person presently in our Canadian justice system to play a similar role for victims; that is, victims who, to use the words of the hon. member, must navigate through this elaborate system which sometimes results in revictimization.

I would ask the hon. member his opinion on what the present government should do and what his party's position is on having an ombudsman, a person akin to the correctional investigator, to act for victims and assist them in any way possible in navigating our very complicated and sometimes slow justice system.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my party has begun by trying to establish some guidelines to support victims in a victims' bill of rights.

We all agree that the rights of people need to be respected and that the rights of those who have been charged and convicted need to be looked at carefully. However, the rights of those who have been caught up in circumstances of other people's criminal intent or action, through no fault of their own, have received no support from the government.

The victims are there for the charge, the trial, the appeal and the re-appeal if that is the case. The scabs are opened and re-opened. They are continually reminded of their pain.

The Reform Party of Canada is absolutely determined that wherever there is a choice to be made between the rights of the victim and the rights of the criminal that the rights of the victim will always come first.

With regard to the subject of the ombudsman, that is something that I believe should be duly considered after we have come to a decision on the rights of the victim. At this point, how can an ombudsman act when we have no idea how the government will respond to legislating the rights of victims? I think that is the first step. Following that we should then look at the means for providing those rights and ensuring that they are secured for victims.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from the adjacent constituency. I know he is very knowledgeable about the First Nations in his area. I suspect also that he is well briefed on the native justice system that has developed on the Navajo reserve in the United States. Over the years they have developed a very sophisticated system in terms of dealing with young offenders on their lands.

Is the member aware of that system and, if he is, does he see some use in adapting and adopting some of their practices to what we are considering doing here in Canada?

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the difficulties that we as Canadian citizens are having in dealing with those who choose to commit crimes we are compelled to begin to try to understand how we can protect ourselves and look after the interests of those who are hurting, which perhaps results in them committing crimes, and those who have been affected by the commission of those crimes.

What we need in Canada is a fair and consistent system that applies to all citizens, where everyone knows the rules.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today in the House to provide hon. members with some information about the status of victims' rights in Canada and the progress that has been made in addressing the concerns of victims of crimes. The topic is obviously very timely. It certainly is of interest to the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and indeed to all Canadians.

I think it is also important to ensure that we present facts instead of distortions, myths and other incorrect information which we have heard today from members of the Reform Party and others.

Hon. members must surely be aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently examining the role of the victim in the criminal justice system. This review is under way due in part to a motion made by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford in April 1996 which called on the government to ask the standing committee to explore a federal bill of rights for victims.

The standing committee heard from several witnesses in April 1997 and concluded that a more detailed examination of this and other related issues was necessary.

Therefore, the standing committee will address a range of issues, including the need for additional services for victims, the information needs of victims, how such services can be funded and whether additional Criminal Code amendments are necessary.

The Minister of Justice has already discussed several options with provincial attorneys general, but has noted that further information will be gathered by the standing committee. Their consultation process will assist the minister in refining many of the options under consideration.

This government cannot be faulted for any lack of concern for victims. Quite the contrary. The Minister of Justice has identified this as one of her highest priorities, and rightfully so.

I would suggest that members opposite are exhibiting impatience rather than focusing on fully participating in the standing committee's review which they in fact encouraged and are now criticizing this government for a lack of concern. Would they bypass the committee process? I would certainly hope not. It is very important that that process take place.

The letter sent by the Minister of Justice to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights emphasizes the minister's eagerness to move forward with concrete proposals but defers to the advice of the committee in order to permit the full participation of all parties represented in this House.

I would also refer members to the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime which was adopted by provincial and territorial governments in 1988. That statement was intended to guide policy and legislative development and it has.

All provinces and territories have enacted victim legislation which generally includes a statement of purpose or principles echoing that Canadian statement. Some jurisdictions, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, also provide for a victim fine surcharge on provincial offences.

Provincial legislation already deals with the notion of victims rights in several different ways. For example there are provisions referred to as a declaration of principles or simply principles in the victims legislation in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. Ontario's Victim's Bill of Rights also includes a preamble.

The Northwest Territories Victims of Crime Act provides that the purpose of the victims assistance committee established by that act is to promote inter alia the courteous and compassionate treatment of victims.

The Yukon Victims Services Act sets out in section 2 the purpose of the victims services fund, for example to promote and provide services and to publish information about the needs of victims and available services.

Similarly Saskatchewan's Victims of Crime Act includes a statement of purpose in section 3, to establish a fund to be used to promote several principles including that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy, that their views should be taken into account and appropriate information and assistance should be provided to them throughout the criminal process where appropriate and consistent with criminal law and procedure. In addition wherever reasonably possible, victims should receive through formal and informal proceedings prompt and fair redress for harm suffered.

It is important to note that some provinces have used the term “rights”. For example British Columbia's Victims of Crime Act sets out several rights for victims of crime in sections 2 to 8. Nova Scotia's Victims Rights and Services Act also employs the term “right”. Section 3 sets out the victim's absolute rights and section 4 sets out the victim's limited rights. Quebec's act respecting assistance and compensation for victims of crime provides for victim's rights and obligations under title 1, sections 2 to 6. Manitoba recently introduced new victims rights legislation which addresses a victim's entitlement to services and information.

It should also be noted that despite the varying terminology used, all provincial victims statutes include provisions which clearly state that no cause of action lies based on the statute for anything done or omitted. In other words there is no remedy for the inability to provide for a right or fulfil a principle set out in the legislation.

It is important that the minister has noted also that when it comes to responding to the concerns of victims of crime the provinces, territories and the federal government have a role to play. It is an important role.

The provinces are responsible for investigating the majority of criminal offences, enforcing the law, prosecuting criminal offences and administering justice within the province. Given that responsibility, provincial legislation can appropriately address victims rights which relate to the provision of information about the investigation, the prosecution, for example the charges laid, bail decisions, trial scheduling, et cetera and available services. Provinces have done exactly that in their legislation.

Federal victims rights legislation to address matters of provincial jurisdiction would not be either possible or practical. That too is important to note.

When discussing the issue of victims rights, I fear we may be influenced by events south of the border and I would hope that is not so. Practically every state in the United States has a victims bill of rights and some even have amended their state constitutions. Canadians may think we must follow suit. However recent studies suggest that these rights are only paper promises. Although we should keep an open mind about the need for more rights, I am sure all members would agree that it is pointless to have symbolic victims rights which are not enforceable.

I look forward to the report of the standing committee that will greatly assist the government in addressing the victim's role in the criminal justice system, whether that be through legislation or through other initiatives.

It is important to review some of the background information on provincial victims legislation. I will highlight the legislation in four provinces to provide examples of the various approaches taken which are worthy to note.

The first relates to British Columbia. British Columbia's comprehensive legislation, the Victims of Crime Act, sets out a range of entitlements for victims and assigns a responsibility to justice system personnel or for example to the crown, commissioner of corrections, or attorney general. For example, section 2 provides that all justice system personnel must treat a victim with courtesy and respect and must not discriminate against a victim on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion and other similar grounds.

Section 4 directs that crown counsel must ensure that a victim is given a reasonable opportunity to have admissible evidence concerning the impact of the offence as perceived by the victim presented to the court before sentence is imposed for the offence.

Section 5 directs that justice system personnel must offer a victim certain information regarding the justice system, victim services, the victim legislation and privacy legislation.

Section 6 provides that certain information must be provided for victims such as the status of the investigation, the name of the accused, court dates and probation or parole conditions.

Section 7 addresses information that will be provided on request of the victim.

Finally, section 8 sets out several goals that the government must promote, including the development of victims services, prompt return of stolen property and protection from intimidation.

I want to highlight Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's Victims Bill of Rights and Services Act sets out a victim's absolute right in section 3, including the right to be treated with courtesy, compassion and dignity and the right to the prompt return of property.

The victim's limited rights are set out in section 4. They are subject to the availability of resources and any other limits reasonable in the circumstances. These limited rights include the right to information about the charge laid, progress of the prosecution and services or remedies available.

I would like now to highlight Ontario. Ontario's Victim's Bill of Rights, proclaimed in June 1996, sets out a range of principles in section 2 regarding the treatment of victims of crime, including that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy; that victims should have access to information about services, protection against intimidation, the progress of investigation and prosecution, court dates, the sentence imposed and release conditions. On request, victims should be notified of release from prison and in the case of persons found unfit or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of any dispositions made by the Criminal Code review board.

This legislation clarifies that these principles are subject to the availability of resources and information, what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case, what is consistent with the law and public interest, and what is necessary to ensure that the resolution of the criminal proceedings is not delayed.

The Ontario legislation has created a civil cause of action for victims of prescribed crime. The offender is liable in damages to the victim for emotional distress and bodily harm. The legislation creates a presumption that a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault or spousal assault suffers emotional distress.

The legislation also creates a provincial victims justice fund account which will include federal and provincial surcharge revenue, donations and appropriations from provincial general revenue. The fund is used for provincial victims services provided by the solicitor general and attorney general and for grants to community agencies.

I would like to highlight Alberta as well. The Alberta Victims of Crime Act, proclaimed August 1, 1997, consolidates the former victims programs assistance act and the criminal injuries compensation act and makes significant reforms to the compensation scheme.

Section 2 sets out the principles which apply to the treatment of victims, including that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, receive information about relevant services and their participation in criminal proceedings, scheduling and ultimate disposition and that their views and concerns should be considered where appropriate.

The act also empowers the minister to appoint a director to implement the act, to provide information to victims, to resolve the concerns of victims who believe they have not been treated in accordance with the principles of the act and to evaluate applications for benefits, financial and others, formerly referred to as criminal injuries compensation.

The act also imposes a surcharge on provincial offences and establishes the victims of crime fund into which both federal and provincial surcharge revenue is deposited. The fund may also receive other revenue, including appropriations from general revenue. The fund is used to provide grants with respect to programs benefiting victims of crime and for financial benefits to eligible victims of crime, for example specific victims.

The director is mandated to determine the eligibility and the amount of the financial benefit for the victim applicant. An appeal board is also established to adjudicate appeals of the director's decision. Eligibility criteria and the amount of the applicable financial benefits will be prescribed and are prescribed by regulations.

In addition, it is important in light of the motion presented today to review some of the recent Criminal Code initiatives which in fact do respond to the needs and concerns of victims of crime. These are Criminal Code responses which Canadians think are very important and clearly support. I would like to highlight some of those now.

In 1995 in response to victims concerns, the maximum penalty for leaving the scene of an accident was increased from two to five years to achieve consistency with the maximum penalty for impaired driving.

On September 3, 1996 amendments to the sentencing part of the Criminal Code included amendments to the restitution and victim impact statement provisions. The scope of restitution is expanded and courts are now required rather than permitted to consider a victim impact statement when one has been prepared. Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing, related to that.

In 1995 section 33 was added to the Criminal Code to clarify that intoxication is not a defence to any general intent crimes of violence, such as sexual assault and assault. Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal Code, self-induced intoxication, referred to that.

Other legislation provided for special warrants to be issued to collect bodily samples for DNA analysis in specified circumstances. These were outlined in Bill C-104, an act to amend the Criminal Code, DNA warrants.

In 1997 Bill C-17, the criminal law improvement bill, included amendments to benefit victims. The peace bond provisions were strengthened. Provisions regarding the use of blood sample evidence in impaired driving prosecutions were clarified and the mandatory prohibition from driving provisions were strengthened.

More specific amendments came into force in May 1997. These amendments include provisions to facilitate the testimony of young victims and witnesses by expanding the use of screens and closed circuit TV to include both complainants and witnesses under 18 years of age, an important move. It also included provisions designed to facilitate the giving of testimony. It will now include offences of prostitution, child pornography and assault, in addition to the sexual offences already listed. It also included amendments clarifying that the existing provisions which prohibit publication of the identity of sexual offence victims apply to current and historic sexual offences as well.

Section 715.1 which permits a young victim of a sexual offence to adopt video testimony at trial will now be available in the prosecution of other offences, including assault, prostitution and child pornography. This was outlined in Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code, child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.

Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, production of records in sexual offence proceedings, was passed and proclaimed into force on May 12, 1997 to protect sexual offence victims by restricting the production to the accused of irrelevant personal and private records.

These measures underscore the commitment of the government to make protection of the public a top priority. That is understood and that is clearly apparent.

It is important to note that while others talk we as a government have acted. It is important to maintain those kinds of actions and to ensure that these actions are consistent with what Canadians want and what Canadians expect the government to do.

In its vision of the future, the federal government attaches vital importance to the security of all Canadians. The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the message the hon. member was giving, but I am afraid he missed the whole idea with regard to victims.

Let me quote Phyllis de Villiers, president of CAVEAT:

The credibility of the justice system depends on the way in which victims are treated and the system's sensitivity to their experience. Currently, victims are often revictimized by the justice system itself. While inordinate attention is paid to the rights of the offender, the victims are marginalized.

With the murder of my daughter, I suddenly became a victim with no voice, no face, no standing, no representation. I received no legal assistance nor advice to help me understand the process at a time when I was barely functioning. There is little recognition of the financial toll of violent crime, both on the victim and the community.

This was on May 30, 1997. We have heard some mighty fine words from the hon. member. He talked about paper promises. He mentioned that we have to show courtesy, compassion and respect. That is only normal. One would have to show those, but victims are not looking for compassion, respect and courtesy. They are looking for some action where justice is being served, where they could stay home and feel satisfied that they have been truly addressed.

The parole system is in a shambles. People are not happy with that. The victims cannot understand how their sons and daughters could be murdered, raped and vandalized by a person who has just got out of prison for the same crimes.

On section 45 tons of people across the country cannot understand how a first degree cold blooded killer could apply to get out of jail in 15 years.

These people keep talking about how they are compelled to address these issues and they are not. Liberal members came up with conditional release. They dreamt that up and it applies to violent offenders. Then there was statutory release even when the guards and the people on the frontline in prisons said that they should not be released because they would kill again. They do it, sit back and do nothing about it. We could ask the Melanie Carpenter family how it feels about statutory release.

CAVEAT exists as do FACTS, CRY, Kid Brother Campaign and MADD. All these victims groups exist because governments like the Liberal government have done nothing on their behalf.

What does the member propose to do for victims? I say to him “Don't give me any more of this courtesy, compassion and respect”.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the hon. member opposite it is my understanding that it is Priscilla de Villiers and not Phyllis de Villiers.

As a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police I dealt extensively in that part of Ontario, in that part of Canada, with victims and the rights of victims. I see the government making enormous strides in terms of making sure that we have in place facilities and programs that assist victims in their time of need.

Every time the government presented options and opportunities for the opposition, in this case the Reform Party, it chose not to vote on bills dealing with victims rights, for example Bill C-41 which dealt with restitution and victims rights accordingly; Bill C-37, victims impact statements; and Bill C-45, stringent measures to be put in place for sex offenders.

It is unbelievable that rather than vote for concrete measures and get on with the job at hand, it seems intent to continue to fearmonger, continue to stir up negativity and continue to point out all kinds of extreme measures which are clearly and absolutely inappropriate for Canadians and society.

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

Mr. Speaker, to address the hon. member's statements continually put forth in the House, they are as true as saying that the earth is flat.

The member is wrong. This party put forth the private member's bill on victims rights. This party is the one that passed it through. This party has been pushing the government for victims rights ever since we got here. This party wanted to put equability and fairness into the justice system. This party passed yesterday a private member's motion on crime prevention using existing programs that have been proven to work. This party is trying to work with members across party lines and put our partisanship aside to build a stronger justice system. The facts speak for themselves.

Many members in our party have reached out their hands repeatedly to members from the other side. Some members have taken that hand and would like to work with us. I find it personally offensive, and I am sure members from this party find it personally offensive, that the member continually chooses to put partisanship ahead of the truth. I hope the member would choose to put constructiveness ahead of partisanship.

Would the hon. member take to the Minister of Justice the private member's bill my colleague put forth on victims rights since he spoke for it and push it forward with the minister to make sure it is enacted in legislation before the end of the year?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question.

We as a government have always moved forward in a non-partisan way hoping to do what is best for the interest of all Canadians and for the country. It is important we continue to do so.

I am amazed at the allegation made by the hon. member in terms of what we as a government are doing. It is clear through not only this debate but through question period and other times that the Reform Party repeatedly wants to take the position of negativity, of extremism, and all kinds of outrageous and outlandish positions when it comes to offenders, victims and everyone else in the criminal justice system. It is quite outrageous. Canadians see through that kind of nonsense and I am glad they do.

Every time we as a government have tried to take concrete steps to address the causes of crime, child poverty, educational opportunities and other issues related to these kinds of things, it would appear we were stymied by members opposite. It is outrageous and too bad. That party would slash over $1 billion from social services programs in Canada.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could accept the changes the Liberal government put forward in criminal justice programs if they were concrete steps, if they were steps that moved the prevention of crime ahead. There has been little more than tinkering done with the justice system since 1993 and prior thereto.

The member talked about how the Reform Party would not support some of the justice bills that were brought in by the Liberal government. The reason for that, and he knows it very well, is that within all the pages of changes there might be one minute piece of legislation, one clause that we could consider to be something that was a positive step. The rest was simply window dressing. In many cases it was a backward step in dealing with criminals and the crime situation. That is why we could not support the Liberal bills.

He talked about Bill C-41. There was one small good part in it which, if they had separated it out, we would have supported. They would not do that and we had to vote against the bill.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, all this from the party that wants to slash $1 billion from social services and literally gut the whole system. It would be absolutely outrageous in terms of what that party would propose and try to do.

In a non-partisan way we have tried to ensure that the criminal justice system is in place in a manner consistent with what Canadians want, deserve and need. It is something to hear members opposite speak in terms of what they want to do and the extent to which they want to drag the country down. I find that ludicrous. Canadians see through that and they will not stand for it. That is the long and short of it.