Debates of April 20th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-79, an act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another Act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak to a subject that is one of my top priorities—improving the treatment of victims in the Canadian criminal justice system. On Thursday, I introduced Bill C-79, which will make changes to the Criminal Code.

I am encouraged by the positive response I have received to these amendments. This response is evidence of the impact the voices of victims of crime and concerned Canadians have had on policy makers and legislators. The fact that so many people are prepared to support this bill and thereby advance the role of victims in the justice system indicates to me that the legislation has appropriately addressed those issues which have for too long caused victims to feel ignored or overlooked.

There is no need for me to speak about these amendments in detail. All members have had an opportunity to review the bill. I also anticipate that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will conduct an appropriate review of the legislation.

I would like to highlight the key features of the bill, but first let me comment briefly on how we arrived at these amendments.

The amendments I have tabled result from a thoughtful consideration of the federal government's role and jurisdiction in addressing the concerns of victims of crime as set out in the Criminal Code. We have moved beyond the rhetoric of a victims bill of rights and have engaged in a dialogue with victims and their advocates, with victims service providers and with our provincial and territorial colleagues about concrete measures to support the concerns of victims.

We have advanced this through the concerted effort of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights whose review of victims issues led to a singular achievement, a unanimous report with recommendations entitled “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”.

The standing committee heard from victims, victims advocates, service providers, crown attorneys, defence lawyers, restorative justice practitioners and countless other interested Canadians in its hearings, town hall meetings and ultimately at its national forum held last June chaired by our colleague and friend, the late Shaughnessy Cohen. With her commitment to this issue and her ability to put participants at ease and encourage them to fully express their views, the report of the standing committee captured what crime victims really want, what they should be entitled to, and what we as a federal government can deliver.

The standing committee recognized and emphasized two significant points. First, the provinces and territories and the federal government share responsibility for the criminal justice system. While we enact the criminal law that applies throughout our country, the provinces are responsible for enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders, and more generally for the administration of justice which includes providing services and assistance for victims of crime.

The second point recognized by the committee is that in Canada, both at the federal and provincial-territorial level, we have already made significant progress in responding to the concerns of victims through legislation, policies and programs. We are not starting from the very beginning.

The committee noted that despite the significant progress of the last decade and despite the current laws and programs, there continue to be gaps and much more can be done by both levels of government to fill those gaps. I want to congratulate every member of the committee for his or her efforts and co-operation.

The Bill C-79 amendments I have tabled fully respond to the recommendations of the standing committee and will build upon the solid foundation of provisions already in the Criminal Code. While these amendments are significant in their own right, what is even more significant is the cumulative and comprehensive nature of the Criminal Code provisions which will result from the proclamation of these amendments. Upon proclamation, Canada will stand out as a leader in addressing the role of the victim in the criminal justice system while at the same time fully respecting the rights of accused persons.

As I promised, I do not intend to describe in detail every provision of Bill C-79, but I would like to highlight a few key features.

First, the preamble to this bill reflects why we as parliamentarians and members of the government are bringing these amendments forward. The preamble expresses our concerns about the impact of crime on society and on victims. It emphasizes that the criminal justice system depends on the participation of victims and witnesses of crime, that this participation should be facilitated and encouraged and that victims and witnesses should always be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect by the justice system.

The preamble also highlights our belief that the views and concerns of victims should be considered particularly with respect to decisions which have an impact on their safety, security and privacy.

The preamble also reflects a key principle of these amendments. That is that this government is committed to ensuring that all persons have the full protection of the rights guaranteed by our charter and that those rights which do often come into conflict are to be reconciled and accommodated. In other words, these improvements to the justice system in the name of victims of crime will in no way take away from the rights of persons accused of crime.

The substantive amendments deal with several key concerns: enhancing the victim impact statement provisions; expanding protection for victims and witnesses to facilitate their participation; ensuring that the concerns of victims and witnesses regarding their safety and security are taken into account when determining whether an accused person should be released on bail; and revising the victim surcharge provisions.

The victim impact statement amendments build upon the current regime which requires that the judge consider any victim impact statement prepared at the time of sentencing of the offender. The amendments will make it clear that where the victims want to read that statement to the judge at the time of sentencing, they shall be permitted to do so. This opportunity to present their statement will assure victims that in addition to the requirement that the statement be considered, it will actually be heard by the judge and persons present in the courtroom at sentencing, including the accused.

The amendments will also address the frequent and significant concern of victims that they did not know about the opportunity to make an impact statement. The code will require that the sentencing judge ask whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement. This legislative provision coupled with other initiatives to improve the flow of information to crime victims will greatly assist victims in their awareness of their role in the justice system, that they have a voice and that it can be heard through the victim impact statement.

Other amendments will permit victims of mentally disordered offenders to describe the impact of the offence by providing for victim impact statements at a disposition hearing following a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Significant changes have been made to the victim surcharge provisions. The new regime will place the obligation to pay the surcharge squarely on the accused. As hon. members know, the revenue raised by the victim surcharge stays in the province or territory and goes into a dedicated revenue fund to provide programs, services and assistance to victims of crime.

This new surcharge regime should result in a significant increase in the revenue available to provinces and territories to help victims. Equally important, the victim surcharge holds offenders accountable, albeit in a small way, to victims of crime as a group.

As I said when I tabled this bill last Thursday, victims need a voice that is listened to and respected. These amendments reflect this philosophy in a concrete and practical way. These amendments are an important and significant step in a strategy to improve the criminal justice system. This strategy requires not only that we as a federal government do our part, but that we encourage others, including provincial and territorial governments, to continue their invaluable work in providing information and other necessary assistance to victims and that we encourage all the players in the criminal justice system to willingly recognize the role of victims and witnesses.

As the federal government we intend to do our part. Today we are focusing on essential Criminal Code amendments. My colleague the solicitor general is eager to address the concerns of victims in the context of the review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act currently being carried out by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In addition to the legislative initiatives, I am committed to full implementation of all the recommendations of the standing committee. These include the establishment of a policy centre within my department to provide the victims lens for all policy and legislative initiatives, to provide a centre of expertise on victims issues and to ensure that we continue to liaise with our provincial and territorial partners and with representatives of all components of the criminal justice system, including victim advocates and service providers to explore emerging issues and to ensure continued progress and improvements.

I count on having the support of all members for Bill C-79. It reflects our collective opinion that victims should be able to speak out and our shared commitment to providing this right.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-79.

Victims of crime are finally going to see a start of some significant initiatives toward rights and privileges. It has been a long struggle but the government appears to have finally recognized and accepted the necessity of rebalancing the scales of justice to more adequately reflect the interests of victims of crime.

First I would like to acknowledge and compliment the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. He definitely got the ball rolling in this place. Throughout the 35th parliament he and his Reform colleagues pressured the government to introduce a victims bill of rights.

It was he who moved the Reform supply day motion of April 29, 1996 which was successful. This place voted to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as it was then called to draft a victims bill of rights. The Minister of Justice was also to initiate consultations with the provinces to arrive at a national standard for a victims bill of rights.

At the time of the debate, the Minister of Justice, now the Minister of Health, acknowledged the severe shortcomings of our legislation in regard to victims rights. He stated: “Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”. He promised specific victim legislation by the fall of 1996. He did not fulfill that promise. In fact it was not for two more years that the government put victims rights on its agenda.

In June 1998 the justice committee finally got around to conducting a review into what changes to the legislation were necessary to acknowledge and respect victims of crime. In October 1998 the justice committee submitted its report “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. It was a good report. It essentially had all-party support.

The Bloc submitted a short minority report but it essentially encouraged the government to respect the provincial jurisdiction within our Constitution in the area of victims issues. Even the Bloc did not have much complaint over the recommended changes to the federal legislation. Those changes merely enhance the role of victims in our criminal law process. The actual financial, physical and psychological assistance programs for victims would still remain a provincial initiative.

For one of the few times in this place, all participants seemed to be onside. The co-operation among the various political parties at the committee table was refreshing and appreciated.

Bill C-79 is merely the response to the committee report. It is long overdue. Victims have been waiting for far too long for many of these rather simple rights. There has been little reason for the government to delay as long as it has. Hopefully this legislation will be a start to rectifying the historical injustices to innocent members of our society who through no fault of their own happen to become victims of crime.

For years the government has fallen all over itself to safeguard the interests of criminals. Victims in many respects have been completely forgotten. Perhaps this legislation is an indication of change. There must be a more proper balance between the rights of the criminal and the rights of the victim.

As I have said, the committee report was an example of how parliamentarians could work together to produce a valuable product for all Canadians. The report contained 17 recommendations. Bill C-79 really only addresses about seven of the recommendations.

Recommendation No. 6 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to require consideration of the complainant's safety concerns prior to judicial interim release decisions, more commonly referred to as bail. There are a number of provisions to protect society as a whole or to protect specific portions of our community such as school children, et cetera, but there is a deficiency when it comes to considering the safety concerns of the specific victims of crime. It is the victim who is most likely to be the subject of intimidation regarding providing evidence and it is the victim who is most likely to be the subject of additional victimization. It only makes sense to consider that particular victim's concerns.

Paragraph 3 of the legislation requires a police officer to consider the safety and security of any victim or witness prior to releasing the accused from custody. Paragraph 4 of the legislation requires the officer in charge to make similar considerations. Paragraph 8 of the legislation places similar controls over the judge. The safety and security of any person, but particularly a victim or witness, must be considered.

Recommendation No. 7 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to facilitate exclusion orders and to prohibit cross-examination by an accused personally during proceedings involving specific offences where the witness is under the age of 18, rather than the current age of 14. The committee found that persons under the age of 18 were more easily intimidated by accused persons when permitted to cross-examine these young members of our society and, in effect, subjecting these victims to be victimized again.

Paragraph 2 of the legislation appears to fulfill this recommendation. Section 486 has been amended to change the age from 14 to 18 years. The judge may appoint counsel for the purpose of conducting the cross-examination.

Recommendation No. 8 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to permit a judge to ban the publication of identifying information concerning a victim, a complainant or a witness in certain circumstances. Concern was expressed over respecting the dignity and privacy of victims. Concern was expressed over hesitancy for complainants to come forward as witnesses should they not wish to have their identities revealed to the public.

Subparagraph 2(3) of the legislation appears to fulfill this recommendation. The judge or justice is given power to ban publication of information that could identify a victim or a witness if necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Recommendation No. 9 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to permit victims the right to read their impact statements into the record either personally or by other means provided the accused has received a copy of the statement in advance. As I have said before, the opportunity to present a victim impact statement in court helps the victim to feel that they are an important part of the justice process, not merely a spectator. It gives them a measure of closure in that they have had the opportunity to impress upon the court just how they have been harmed by the offence. It gives them an opportunity to impress upon the offender just how they have been damaged by the actions of that individual. It gives them the opportunity to hope that their words may cause the offender to reflect upon their misconduct and perhaps move them on the road to rehabilitation.

This recommendation was of special significance to me. As some may know, my son was murdered six and a half years ago. I was not permitted to present my impact statement orally. I have been working for this change, among others, ever since.

Paragraph 17 of the legislation appears to fulfill this recommendation. The court shall permit the victim to read victim impact statements.

Recommendation No. 10 proposed changes to require impact statements to be provided to the offender or counsel and to the prosecutor as soon as practicable after a determination of guilt. Concern had been raised over the fact that victim impact statements were to be provided to an accused as soon as it was filed. They were often used as evidence during the trial through cross-examination to attack the credibility of the victim, even though they were not permitted as evidence until the sentencing portion of the hearing, if any. To provide fairness, this recommendation proposed notice to the offender as soon as practicable after the finding of guilt. They cannot and should not be used until sentencing so they should not be available to the defence until sentencing. There will be ample opportunity at the sentencing for the defence to challenge the statement.

Paragraph 18 appears to fulfill this recommendation. The clerk of the court shall provide a copy of the report to the offender or counsel and to the prosecutors. We, as proponents of victims' rights issues, are fair. We certainly recognize the necessity to provide the offender with notice of the contents of an impact statement.

Evidence must not be presented in surprise although the rules of disclosure currently allow the defence to do just that, but that is a fight for another day. In this case. the offender must be provided the opportunity to lead contradictory evidence, if any.

Recommendation No. 11 proposed changes to oblige the sentencing judge to determine whether the victim had been provided an opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement and to grant an adjournment for that purpose where satisfied it would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Paragraph 18 of the legislation appears to fulfill that recommendation. The court inquires of the prosecutor whether the victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a statement.

One of the primary problems with victims' issues is that no one can forecast becoming a victim of crime. As such, victims most often have little idea of what rights, privileges or provisions are available to them. It is one thing to provide victims with rights. It is quite another thing to ensure that the victim is made aware of those rights.

Recommendation No. 11 was made by the committee to ensure that the victim was made aware of the right to present a victim impact statement and the opportunity to prepare and submit the statement. Bill C-79 meets this test. The court has discretion whether to adjourn the proceedings to permit the victim to prepare a statement if satisfied that the adjournment would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Recommendation No. 13 recommended that the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act be amended to allow for the automatic imposition of a mandatory minimum victim fine surcharge that could be waved by the court to avoid undue hardship to the offender. Paragraph 20 appears to fulfill this recommendation in respect of Criminal Code cases.

The government has refused to initiate similar provisions with respect to young persons. In the recent legislation introduced in the youth criminal justice act, the government has essentially left victim fine surcharges to the provinces. If the provinces do not provide leadership in this area the court may impose a surcharge. The government has left this type of provision in spite of the Minister of Justice's comments that the practice of leaving it to the courts has not worked. Judges have had that power for years but they either refuse to use it or forget about it when imposing sentences. It was because of this problem that the justice committee recommended a mandatory minimum surcharge or a sort of reverse onus clause. It requires the court to automatically assess a fine surcharge but leaves it up to the defendant to argue economic hardship. The justice committee was attempting to provide sufficient financial resources to assist the provinces to provide sufficient resources to victims of crime.

We will be attempting to have this amended in the current legislation or in the new youth justice act.

As members can see, Bill C-79 addresses a number of recommendations of the justice committee report. The recommendations that have been addressed have been relatively simple and not too painful. None of them really require any additional funding from the government or in actual fact the taxpayer. None of the accepted recommendations impact on the rights of the accused to any great extent. Yes, the accused may be held in custody if there is a decision that the victim or witness is at risk of further harm. Yes, the accused may no longer personally cross-examine young victims in cases such as sexual assault. Yes, the victim is being provided with enhanced rights to present a victim's impact statement. Yes, there is a better method of obtaining fine surcharges to provide assistance to victims.

All of these are long overdue and are not a particularly burdensome imposition on our accused or our criminals. They all make common sense. It is indeed a wonder why we have waited so long to bring them into being.

I will now move to comment on recommendations that have not been addressed by the government. Victims have waited for years to finally obtain substantive recognition and respect for their interests. The justice committee heard from a number of victims and victims' groups both in testimony and in a one and a half day round table forum last summer. There was a co-ordinated response from the committee of the necessity to act and act now. Unfortunately, this same sentiment is not as present with the government.

In recommendation No. 5, the justice committee proposed the tabling of an omnibus bill to address needed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C-79 only addresses the Criminal Code aspect. The minister has used the excuse that the justice committee is presently reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so the government will await that report before deciding whether to initiate reforms to that legislation in regard to victims' rights. The minister has also claimed that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is the responsibility of the solicitor general. My first thought is the old problem of the chicken and the egg. Which came first?

We have a victims' rights report. It addresses the needed changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is after years and years of waiting. It is difficult for me to accept having to wait some more months, perhaps many months, before the government might bring forth the needed victim legislation as it pertains to our prisons and our parole system.

It is difficult to understand why the government does not just do the job necessary. Why does it always have to seem to need to be forced to introduce legislation that is best for its citizens? Why does it play political games to procrastinate and to prolong the suffering and disregard of innocent Canadians who just happen end up as victims of crime?

For the minister to claim that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act comes under the responsibility of the solicitor general may be acceptable to the general public but we all know that it is the Minister of Justice's department that puts together legislation of a legal nature. Yes, the solicitor general has overall responsibility but he and his predecessor have had the committee recommendations the same time as the Minister of Justice. Surely the Corrections and Conditional Release Act response to the committee report could have been completed in the same time as the Criminal Code portion. In fact the more substantial portion of the report dealt with changes to the Criminal Code.

There were essentially four recommendations dealing with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These changes were relatively simple. They were of the same nature as the changes to the Criminal Code. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the solicitor general's area of response is not now before the House. That is a travesty to victims of crime. It is unacceptable.

A number of recommendations had to do with developing a victims of crime strategy, co-ordinating federal-provincial responsibilities, establishing a national office for victims of crime and creating an advisory committee on victims of crime. All of these aspects do not really require legislation.

The Minister of Justice has announced that she will be creating the national office within her department. We have seen little evidence of how it is to operate. We hope it develops into more than just a public relations exercise or a haven for patronage appointments. It cannot be allowed to develop into just another bureaucratic department.

As a member of the justice committee, I know that this recommendation had more to do with creating a substantial initiative to properly assist victims toward obtaining justice and closure for their unwanted and unfortunate involvement with crime. This national office and any advisory committee must provide concrete solutions and resolutions to victims' issues. Canadians are looking for action, not some more bureaucratic delay, not more red tape and certainly not more excuses.

I am concerned about the definition of victim. It has been added to the definition section of the Criminal Code and merely states, “includes the victim of an alleged offence”. For the purposes of section 722 there is a broader definition of victim. This includes a person to whom harm was done or who suffered physical or emotional loss as a result of the commission of an offence. Section 722 is restricted to victim impact statements.

During the anticipated justice committee review of this legislation, I will be interested in hearing why a broader definition, similar to what is included in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, has not been used. Without getting carried away and making everyone a victim of any crime, there may well be sufficient argument to ensure true victims are not excluded merely because of the wording of the legislation.

I will conclude my submission with a couple of stories which I hope will drive home to my hon. colleagues the shoddy treatment some victims of crime are subjected to.

My son Jesse's best friend was at his side when he died. Can anybody here even begin to imagine the trauma? Jeremy's parents attempted to get him some help but were told the waiting list was months long. Five months later, on the eve of my son's birthday, Jeremy acted out by committing a very minor offence himself. As an offender he received help within days. What does that tell us?

Two weeks after our own tragedy, Laurie Woods and her roommate were brutally stabbed to death.

To make a long story short, Laurie's mother Pat anticipated the possibility of requiring counselling. When Laurie's dad Bob inquired about financial compensation for counselling, should it be required, some thoughtless bureaucrat promptly told him that his wife did not qualify because she did not personally witness the killings.

Family members of homicide victims witness the event every night in their nightmares. Bob and Pat are friends of mine. A short time later we along with others were successful in getting the rules in British Columbia changed. Granted these are provincial issues but I think the point is made. The issue must be approached at all levels.

I do not intend on being entirely of gloom and doom. The legislation is a start toward victims rights provisions. It has been far too long in coming. Even the government's response to the justice committee is only half done. We will still have to wait for the changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Hopefully Canadians, and especially victims of crime, will not have to wait too much longer for the government to fulfil the needs of these individuals. Today is a start. There is still a long way to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, an act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in consequence.

This bill addresses several legitimate public expectations regarding how our criminal justice system should treat the victims of crime.

Criminal justice is defined in various ways. Some will say that the purpose of the justice system is to punish those who have broken the law. In fact, living in society involves respect for certain fundamental values that help maintain social equilibrium. If we do not respect these values, we expose ourselves to the disapproval of our fellow citizens and face a sentence judged appropriate by the community. This sentence must meet various considerations, one of them being to protect society. The sentence imposed must make it possible to decrease, if not eliminate, the probability of a repeat offence, thus lowering the medium and long term social costs of crime.

The criminal justice system therefore has a very significant social dimension. This is shown primarily by the fact that it is the state that brings criminals before the courts. Contrary to civil proceedings, it is the attorney general, representing the community, who must defend our interests by proving the accused's guilt before the courts.

In this context, we see that criminal justice is evaluated basically according to our shared needs. When we pass legislation aimed at fighting crime, we do so in light of an overall analysis of the situation. We avoid legislating based on specific, individual, cases. We ensure that the justice system is properly integrated.

A good body of legislation is described as being consistent, with punishments that match the crimes committed, and as effectively addressing the harmful consequences of these crimes on society in general.

Crimes have always had names associated with them. The suspect's first and last names appear on the court decision. The media pick them up, and associate a face and an identity with them. The suspected perpetrator has not only rights, but also has obligations, freedoms but also constraints.

As we have seen, crime has an adversary: the state. Criminal justice does not just involve us and the crime, us and evil. There are also, above all, those who have been the victims.

Too often we lose sight of the fact that crime, to which we have attached a name, also involves another set of names, the first and last names of the person who has been killed, hurt or otherwise affected, a person with a face and a specific identity. That person might be our friend, our relative, a child we know.

That name imposes the unlooked-for status of victim of crime, with all the suffering, torment, distress and of course anger that entails.

The legal process the victims are required to take part in does nothing to lessen all this suffering. On the contrary, the victim is forced to face the perpetrator and to relive in every last detail an unbearable event he or she wishes to forget as quickly as possible. The criminal justice system is therefore often perceived as more of an irritant than a balm.

The members of the House of Commons must assume their responsibilities and work to reduce the negative effects of criminal proceedings on the victims of criminal acts. They must not only ensure that the victims are not obliged to relive the drama, but they must also enable them to speak out.

Accordingly, in the spring of 1998, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began to study the role of victims of criminal acts in the criminal justice system. After lengthy consultation, the committee, of which I am a member, tabled a report, some elements of which are reproduced in the bill before us today.

In this regard, we would point out that the amendments proposed by the committee and approved by the minister in her Bill C-79 serve to protect victims and involve them in the criminal justice system and to increase the funding available for the services offered them. We will see briefly how each of them is expressed in the bill.

The so-called protective measures include the fact that the bill recognizes the urgency of better protecting victims as they are cross-examined by a person accused of sexual assault. The Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly asked in recent years that this protection be reinforced, since cross-examination is probably the hardest thing for a victim to face, especially when the accused is doing the questioning.

Unfortunately, sexual offences are regularly committed by people known to the victims. In fact, the statistics and files on these cases indicate that a friend, a parent or someone in a position of trust, an object of affection, not hatred, is often found to be responsible for the sexual aggression.

Since the victim must be very brave to report this sort of offence, even more courage is, understandably, required to face one's aggressor in court. The additional protection provided under Bill C-79, which prohibits cross-examination by the accused of victims under 18 years of age, is therefore a step in the right direction. It will certainly allow the most vulnerable to prepare for the effects of this difficult stage of the process.

This limitation for victims under the age of 18 also ensures that the bill meets the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With respect to the provisions for greater victim participation in the judicial process, there are the amendments regarding victim impact statements.

Once Bill C-79 has been passed, victims will be allowed to read a statement describing the impact of the crime on their life and that of their family. This amendment would have the merit of allowing victims to play a more active role in sentencing mechanisms. In addition, the new wording of the Criminal Code would require judges to ensure that victims were duly informed of the possibility of preparing such a statement.

Parliament has responsibilities towards the victims of crime. However, its role, although extremely important, is linked to the criminal procedures defined in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In essence, the role of the Parliament of Canada is limited by the distribution of powers.

In fact, under this distribution of powers, the provinces have primary jurisdiction for coming to the aid of victims of crime. Any legislative measure concerning victims, other than measures set out in criminal law and proceedings, falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

As an example, the Government of Quebec has implemented a system of co-operation between the CSST, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance in order to provide financial support to victims through the application of its crime victims compensation act.

The Quebec Department of Justice funds a number of programs including those offered by the Quebec crime victims assistance centres.

These provincial program may be numerous, but they are also costly. Maintaining these essential services cannot be assured unless the funding is equal to the demand. Since 1988, part of this funding comes from a victim fine surcharge that is imposed by the courts.

This compensation is a penalty over and above any sentence that is intended to involve the criminal directly in making reparation to the victim. In fact, it goes toward the funding of provincial victim assistance services.

It must be made clear that the victim fine surcharge does not come from any of the resources generated by the federal government. By imposing this surcharge, the court taps into the financial capacity of the offender, not that of the federal government. Thus, in approving any change to the victim fine surcharge system, great care must be taken that the federal government does not play any part whatsoever in the funding of provincial services for victims.

According to the provincial prosecutors involved in the various victim assistance programs, the surcharge authorized and collected under the Criminal Code is not enough for improvements to the victim assistance programs.

By making this subject to a maximum of 15% of the fines imposed on sentencing, or setting it at $35 if there is no fine, the Criminal Code did not guarantee basic services of the financial health they required.

Bill C-79, reflecting the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, makes a substantial change to the victim fine surcharge system, first of all by making it mandatory for all offenders. Unless the court is of the opinion that its imposition would cause undue hardship, the surcharge ought to be paid by all offenders, regardless.

As for the amounts, these would in future be 15% of any fine imposed on the offender for the offence, or if no fine is imposed, $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and $100 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment. As well, the court may order an offender to pay a higher amount if it is satisfied that the offender is able to do so.

It may prove necessary to review the provisions on victim surcharge. The provinces, responsible for managing all direct services for victims of criminal offences, count on this significant contribution the offenders must provide.

The victims of criminal offences deserve attention commensurate to the tragedy they have undergone. Policies on criminal justice can be fair only insofar as they take the victim's interests into account.

So, Bill C-79 is welcome. The measures it contains will gradually rebalance the interests at stake in the criminal justice system. The victims and their families will now be able to count on protection and greater involvement in the criminal proceedings they are thrust into, much against their will.

It is from this perspective, that the Bloc Quebecois welcomes Bill C-79 from the Minister of Justice.

Nevertheless, I would like to conclude by recalling that the role of the federal government with respect to the victims of criminal acts must be limited to jurisdictions relating to criminal procedings and law. The minister cannot, under any pretext, succumb to the temptation to cross into provincial jurisdiction in connection with providing help to victims of criminal acts.

In introducing Bill C-79, on April 15, the minister announced the establishment of a victim strategy centre. In a press release, she stated that the new centre would manage, co-ordinate and increase federal initiatives to victims. Despite the minister's good intentions, we feel that crime victims would be better served if the federal government stopped duplicating existing provincial services.

In fact, the Bloc Quebecois is not only convinced that respect for the distribution of powers serves the interests of crime victims, but it fears that the minister's announcement will lead to additional administrative costs that could be avoided if the tools now available were better used.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore ensure that the mandate of the Victims' Policy Centre is defined in terms of federal jurisdiction, so that the provinces' constitutional authority with respect to victim assistance is respected.

I would remind the Minister of Justice that, in response to the dissenting report I tabled during consideration of this topic, she said that she would do everything she could, that she agreed with me that this centre should fully respect provincial jurisdictions, and that she would intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction only with the agreement of the provinces. I am confident that, in such a case, the minister will act in accordance with her response to my dissenting report.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to address Bill C-79, an act respecting victims of crime.

All the previous speakers who worked on the committee and the minister herself mentioned that this was a good day. It is a recognition of what a committee can do when parties put aside partisan differences and work in a constructive way for the benefit of Canadians. It is, and the minister referred to it, a tribute to the late Shaughnessy Cohen who chaired this committee.

I am cognizant of the remarks of the member for Surrey North. Much of the preliminary work was done for the committee prior to my election in June 1997. It was done in the last parliament. It is against that backdrop we should examine the work of the committee, the recommendations of the committee and the bill brought forward by the minister.

I came to the House and became the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party on justice as a former defence lawyer. I came to the committee dealing with the role of victims with much of the preconceived ideas that one would have, as did my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who came here as a former crown prosecutor. It is fair to say that all parties brought a perspective to the committee which helped to shape what became a unanimous report by the committee presented to the House of Commons.

It is a tribute to both the Conservative member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the member for Surrey North who brought the perspective of the victim to the committee. Also a Bloc Quebecois member brought to the committee the perspective of provincial rights and the importance of understanding the roles of the federal and provincial governments. Members of the Liberal Party brought a sense of listening to the victims.

We put aside our differences. We debated some very fundamental issues about which I will speak in a moment. As a result we were able to come to a unanimous report which is a tribute to both the chair of the committee and to the work that went into it. I do not think we can underestimate the importance of the day and a half long meeting all members of that committee from all parties had with not just victims of crime but with representatives of every aspect of the criminal justice system.

There was goodwill. Whether they were from the National Police Association, groups representing victims of crime, the Canadian Bar Association or the Defence Lawyers Association, there was a real attempt by the participants in that meeting to work constructively and represent to members of parliament the kinds of changes that had to be made in the criminal justice system to accommodate what has for a long time been neglected, that is the role of victims in the criminal justice system.

Much has been said about the rights of victims and much has been said about the rights of criminals. Working at this level on the committees I think all of us struggled with some difficult questions. On the surface it seems fairly straightforward. One is a victim of crime. One ought to be afforded certain rights. One is a criminal. Certainly criminal rights ought not to supersede those of the victim.

However, when we scratch the surface and begin to explore what that means, there are difficult questions. When does one move from being an accused to being a criminal? When does one move from being the accuser to being a recognized victim?

The member for Surrey North has mentioned that there is a definition of victim in the act which requires careful scrutiny. There is a hazy area where we still have to ensure the balance between the presumption of innocence and a recognition that a wrong has been done, a balance between the rights of the accused before a finding of guilt or innocence and the rights of the person who is accusing them, and then competing balances when there is a finding by the court of guilt. Where one becomes a criminal the accuser moves into a different area and certainly the victim has been affirmed as in fact a victim.

We struggled with those competing rights and how best the legislation could meet the balance of ensuring the protection of the rights of the accused on one hand and the role of the victim on the other.

We have to be very careful when we talk about rights to understand that rights are not a little package which each independent individual person carries around in a briefcase. Rights are collective. They are all our rights. When the rights of an accused are infringed upon my rights are infringed upon, as are the rights of every citizen in the country. When a victim's rights are not adhered to, my rights are not adhered to. Nor are the rights of anyone in the country.

It is not as though we have a section on victims rights here that goes to war against the accused rights there. They are the collective responsibility and fall into the safeguard of all of us as citizens. That is why the committee struggled so hard. That is certainly the perspective that we from the New Democratic Party brought to find that important balance where we safeguard the rights of all Canadians and ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

The legislation responds to a number of unanimous recommendations that came forward from the justice committee and which all parties signed on to. The act does a number of things. I think it is worth examining exactly what is in the legislation.

As has been commented upon, it provides that all offenders must pay a victim surcharge of a fixed minimum amount, except where the offender establishes undue hardship, and provides for increased amounts to be imposed in appropriate circumstances. Not only is that important in bringing responsibility to bear on the part of the offender, which it does. It also provides a revenue by which many of the programs can be funded.

This was a criticism, some may recall, that we had of the initial act to replace the Young Offenders Act because of the costs. These things cost money. It is important to know where the sources of revenue will be and who will bear those costs. In many cases it will be the provinces in both this legislation and in the legislation to which I just referred. It is important to know where the source of revenue will come from.

This provides some moneys to go toward establishing what will be necessary to implement the law. This law will create a greater burden on the courts. There is no question about that. It will create a greater burden on the role of crown prosecutors or crown attorneys, as they are referred to in some provinces.

Prior to this legislation the crown answered almost exclusively to the state which it represented. There will be increased pressure on the crown to respond and to ensure the victim plays an essential role in the criminal justice process. Some of those costs to the provinces can be recouped through this victim surcharge tax.

There are also provisions to ensure victims are informed of their opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement at the time of sentencing. One of the most important aspects of the legislation to the victim is that it is essential to the victim of a crime, especially after the finding of guilt at the time of sentencing.

At that point we are no longer talking about the competing rights of the accused and of the person who accuses. At that point there is a determination of guilt. We know then there is an offender who has committed a criminal offence and a person who has been done wrong. It is important they be given an opportunity at the time of sentencing to prepare a statement and to deliver it either in written form or orally before the court.

Many cases before the courts today involve young victims. That is why there is a section extending protection to victims of sexual or violent crime up to the age of 18. It restricts personal cross examination by self-represented accused persons.

The purpose of that was to ensure where a young person of 16 or 17 years is a victim of a sexual crime and an accused wants to be self-represented that the accused did not intimidate the young person. An important caveat to that, which indicates the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim, is contained in the legislation. It is one that we on behalf of the New Democratic Party brought to the table at the justice committee.

The section actually reads that protection is provided to the young person and the accused cannot personally cross-examine him or her. It also makes a provision for the court to appoint a lawyer for the purposes of cross-examination. We cannot refuse the accused the right to question the person who accuses them. At the same time we do not want the accused to be able to intimidate the victim, so we have provided for the court to appoint a lawyer to perform that function. That is a very important aspect of the balancing act in the legislation.

I am pleased to say that the NDP supports the overall intent of the legislation to give victims and witnesses of crime a greater role in the criminal justice system and to increase safeguards for those victims. The legislation attempts to strike that balance which we will be looking at very carefully in committee to ensure it does. I have already spoken about the need to ensure it does not infringe upon the rights of the accused at the same time as it provides an opportunity for the victim.

The establishment of the policy centre for victims of crime announced earlier this year is important. That is intended to ensure that all federal policies and legislation take into account the concerns of victims. This is a major step forward. It is something we recognize and applaud. It is the type of approach that could be applied in other areas of social policy.

I have often thought we ought to have a policy centre for poverty where we might ensure that legislation is looked at through a lens in terms of what it will do to those who are currently poor in this wealthy country. It is a step and it may provide a model we can use in other areas.

It is our hope that the legislation will redress many of the concerns raised by victims and make it easier for victims and witnesses to play a meaningful role in the courts.

From my own years in the courts it is clear that the judiciary in many cases looked in the past to the crown to represent the views of the victim to some extent, especially at sentencing hearings. This will provide victims an opportunity to fulfil that role themselves. It is important legislation in that regard.

It goes some way to meeting the needs expressed by many victims at the round table. Again I applaud them for coming forward. I think that much of this would not have happened but for their work. It is a testament to the way laws can be drafted in a democratic society when a group of people who feel they have a contribution to make, and this group certainly did, can come forward through their elected representatives and the government can respond to an all-party committee and accept the recommendations.

As has been indicated, there are some areas that have not been accepted yet. We will be watching very carefully to see what kind of changes take place under the solicitor general's department with regard to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We will be watching that to ensure they match up with the recommendations of the all-party committee. However, it is an example of the government responding and I think it is to be congratulated for that.

I believe also that members of the committee in the other parties are to be congratulated for coming forward in the positive way they did. Let us hope we can continue to reform the criminal justice system with that kind of spirit.

We will be looking at the legislation carefully. We in the NDP will continue to advocate for a sensible, compassionate response to the victims of crime, but one that takes into account the essential balancing that is so necessary for justice to be done in the criminal justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, as previous members have mentioned, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, which I feel is a very positive piece of legislation brought forward by the minister. I congratulate her on her wisdom in recognizing the recommendations that were put forward by the justice committee.

I also want to take a brief moment to recognize the contributions of the previous speakers and previous members of the justice committee for their positive contribution to this bill, which has now come to the stage where it is before the House for debate.

At this time in our country's history and in the world's history the issue of victims rights is certainly something about which there is a raised awareness. We have seen in Kosovo every evening news coverage which shows disturbing images of people dying, people being injured and families separated, crimes being committed under the guise of war. We continually hear of accounts of terrible crimes being perpetrated on individuals at the hands of Milosevic's forces.

It saddens me to think that victims such as this will never have an opportunity to reach justice or to seek justice or retribution for these attacks. It also makes me and I think others reflect on how lucky we are to have a criminal justice system in this country that at least attempts to address those issues of victimization.

I would also be remiss if I did not pay some tribute to the late Shaughnessy Cohen, the chair of the justice committee at the time of the drafting of this report, and also recognize her very significant contribution to this cause, which I believe is embodied in the legislation that is before the House.

We are fortunate to live in a society that is progressive with regard to our criminal justice system. I think this bill displays an attitude of non-partisanship concerning a justice issue as important as this.

As a crown attorney I found myself considering daily the rights of victims and the issues they were wrestling with in seeking judicial retribution from criminal parties who preyed upon them. We need to recognize that there is also more that we in this parliament and we in the justice system can do to address further those needs.

As I said at the outset, I believe that this is a positive step forward. With that being said, the Progressive Conservative Party will support this legislation and will continue to work toward improvements to our Criminal Code which will entrench the rights of victims during the prosecution of offences.

I also want to commend the minister for accepting that these recommendations are necessary and timely. However, supporting the protection of victims and supporting legislation that perhaps sometimes raises expectations beyond their real means is a very dangerous thing to do. It is a shame that the Liberal government has once again failed to recognize that these amendments to the Criminal Code are going to cost a great deal of money to implement. While Bill C-79 is comparable to the youth justice bill in that regard, the government has enacted legislation that is essentially going to leave the provinces holding the bag in many instances with respect to the cost of implementation. In the House of Commons we have unfortunately come to expect this to a degree.

With respect to false hopes and expectations, we have seen that type of legislation before in two bills, ironically both labelled Bill C-68. However, for the victims of crime who want their ideas to be heard, and for their safety and protection, the actual implementation of this bill is very timely and very important.

The biggest disappointment, as I said, pertains to resources.

It was also mentioned by previous speakers and certainly at the time of the round table that was held in the summer and during the implementation and discussions of this bill that there was hope there would be a national office to address the needs of victims. It was hoped that there would be one central point where victims could go to receive information, a place where victims could receive answers to their very serious questions, having gone through a justice system that often seems very sterile and cold. That was the hope of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as other members of the opposition who were involved in the drafting of the report.

The victims office would be modelled after what is called the correctional investigator's office. For the benefit of those present who are not aware, there was a correctional investigator's office set up to address the needs of those who are serving time in federal institutions, those who are paying their debt to society. The office has a budget of close to $2 million and is staffed significantly to address those needs. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but to not have a similar office with a similar budget, at the very least, for victims of crime, I find completely perverse and offensive.

Correctional services currently has an investigator who deals with concerns and complaints of prisoners. To suggest that victims should not have similar treatment is certainly paying short shrift to the suffering which victims have endured.

Since elected to parliament, it has been increasingly clear to me that victims in our justice system are in need of such an office. As a critic for my party I have had the opportunity to speak to victims of crime. Previous to that I spoke with victims and dealt with victims quite regularly. These individuals are not looking necessarily to change the outcome of a trial or to have the judge or the prosecutor act upon their every demand.

I believe that this piece of legislation and the report that led to the enactment of these changes is quite aptly named “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. I think that encompasses the spirit of what victims are looking for in our justice system. They are looking for the recognition that they should be heard and that their input should, at the very least, have some impact on the court decisions that have to be made.

Victims are also spouses, children, parents, siblings; many of whom have lost loved ones as a result of criminal activity. All of those individuals often are extremely affected by this. The previous narrow definition of victims is also something that had to be changed. We certainly welcome the fact that we see that encompassed in the bill today.

Our party also understands the need which Canadians and victims of crime have to get support from their elected officials. I think that a very important signal is being sent today in the non-partisan and, for the most part, very positive comments that we have heard emanating from all members who have spoken to this bill.

I certainly feel that the office which I mentioned has been an oversight. It has to some degree been overlooked by the minister. There is still hope that burns eternal that in future months and future opportunities that will arise in this place that will change. I know that hope exists also amongst the stakeholders in the community who have worked so tirelessly to bring legislation forward to this point and who have worked with the minister and her departmental officials to encourage them to open or to move toward an office such as this.

The reason for not doing so appears to be jurisdictional. We have heard a number of comments made by my colleague in the Bloc about the fear that exists—and perhaps it is a legitimate fear on some occasions—about jurisdictional matters treading into the matters of the provinces. However, not only are victims rights a non-partisan matter, but when it comes to positive change I would suggest that this is not an issue that would offend anybody with respect to treading into jurisdictional matters. This is a purely good news initiative.

We should have an office that would work in conjunction with existing offices in the provinces. I know that Ontario and, to a large degree, Quebec have been leaders in this particular area. I am sure that a schedule or scheme could be worked out where victims could be given information and there could be a better co-ordinated effort to provide this type of information through one central office that should, in terms of its national scope, be coming from the federal government and not the provinces.

The minister herself was quick to admit that it is the provinces which administer justice at the street level and she quite correctly points out that fact. However, the federal government is ultimately the drafter of much of the legislation and is ultimately the one to pay the piper. It should take the leadership role in setting up a national victims office and naming the person who would act as an ombudsman and an ongoing source for the information which victims need.

It is not only in the first instance when victims become victimized—and we all know that begins the moment it happens— it is also the follow up and ongoing contact that the victims seem to be most offended by in our criminal justice system. That is where that type of office would be extremely important, in addressing those very real needs of victims.

There are other positive amendments that I will speak to briefly. I welcome and to a large degree commend the minister for recognizing the need. One of those positive issues includes the sections that pertain to the publication ban of a victim's name or a witness's name. That protection of identity will make it easier for victims to take part in court proceedings.

There are also amendments that will permit a victim impact statement to be heard at a parole eligibility hearing to ascertain whether a person should be released at the time of serving a certain portion of their debt to society.

The initiatives that will permit the oral presentation of a victim impact statement are extremely important. The knowledge element of informing a victim that a person convicted of a life sentence will in fact be eligible for parole at some point is once more a bitter-sweet bit of knowledge. I am hopeful that at some point in the future we will see the removal of section 745 from the Criminal Code so that this terrible piece of information will not have to be made known to a victim that parole eligibility exists for a first degree murder conviction.

Improvements have also been made concerning the conditions upon the release of an accused with respect to the participation of the accused in programming and the participation of the accused in their own rehabilitative efforts. Amendments were also made to improve the criteria of a victim impact statement. One of those mentioned includes the protection of both victims and witnesses in their participation in the system. The impact is often the only way victims can express their concerns and feelings resulting from incidents of criminal behaviour.

I do not want to leave anyone in the Chamber with the impression that this is entirely a good piece of legislation. I believe there were some missed opportunities which existed for the minister to perhaps go further with respect to matters such as the enactment of a victims' office and an ombudsman. Certainly there is a further need, and it is not a legislative need, but a need for the recognition that there is going to be a cost associated with this.

I was very encouraged to hear the comments from the previous speaker, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He pointed out quite aptly that there is going to be a greater emphasis on crown prosecutors, and I would go further and say on judges as well, that emanates from this bill. It has been my experience that most crown attorneys have been doing much of what is now enacted in this legislation when it comes to information sharing. This bill will certainly be the impetus for crown attorneys to do so in a more systemic way.

Unfortunately victims have had no one to turn to for assistance at the federal level when those individuals were faced with lack of information. Oftentimes that fell to the discretion of crown prosecutors when it came to the drafting of things such as victim impact statements. So clarification does come from this bill, which is certainly a welcome and necessary change.

In my home province of Nova Scotia there is a victim services division within the Department of Justice. There are very dedicated individuals like Judy Whitman and Coreen Popowich who work in the New Glasgow office who daily make great contributions to the cause and needs of victims.

In Quebec le Bureau d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels, BAVAC, provides information and assistance to victims of crime. We have seen Progressive Conservative governments in provinces like Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario which have also increased the level of services available to victims at this time.

Again we see that the provinces have had to act upon a problem and have used their political expediency because of the fact that the federal government has not been moving quickly in this direction.

We heard from previous speakers the fact that much of the initiative for this legislation was announced publicly. Huge press conferences were held and ministers toured the country. It has been very slow to see the change that was initiated and which has come forward today. That is not something the federal government can be proud of. The federal government is getting on board.

Initiatives were taken in the previous parliament by members of the Reform Party as has been mentioned. Once more the victims themselves and their advocates and members of that community who have lobbied so strongly for these needed changes are truly the ones who should feel a sense of redemption and should be reaping the credit and the reward that is due today.

Under normal circumstances one would think that this would be a day for celebration. Certainly a great deal more can be done to ensure that victims are going to be participating in a system that affects them greatly, that has affected them and will continue to do so for a long period of time, if not until the end of the day.

The fact that legislation such as this is slow to come about must leave victims with somewhat of a sour taste in their mouth. In my opinion, our justice system has been moving in the wrong direction for a long time. There is almost a feeling of begrudged giving in on the part of the government when it comes to acknowledging the role of victims in our system.

If this bill was treated like that of the Young Offenders Act in that the provinces themselves were so active in lobbying for change, then I would have hoped that this bill would have come about in a much more timely fashion.

Certainly a federal agency would go a long way to assisting individuals like Carolyn Solomon of Garson, Ontario. I want to cite this example because it is one which I think epitomizes some of the problems not only in the correctional system but throughout the entire process.

In 1997 Mrs. Solomon lost her son Kevin who was murdered by Michael Hector. Hector was a federal parolee who was not properly supervised. Moreover, Hector's parole supervisor was not provided with sufficient information about this individual to make informed decisions about his release. This was no doubt due to lack of funding, lack of resources and also I suggest in some small part, due to the fact that Correctional Service Canada was already initiating the early phases of its 50/50 prison release quota.

Michael Hector breached conditions of his parole and should not have been out on the street in the first place. Consequently he was free to kill. Three young individuals lost their lives as a result, including Carolyn Solomon's son Kevin.

Mrs. Solomon wanted to know, and rightly, why Michael Hector was permitted to breach these conditions of parole and not held accountable at that time. She wanted to know why Correctional Service Canada did not provide Michael Hector's full criminal record and psychological record to his parole supervisor. She also wanted to know why the parole supervisor took everything that Michael Hector told him at face value, a sense of self-reporting, and why there was no in-depth investigation of the information statements that were provided by the parolee.

To their credit, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board have a mechanism in place to promptly undertake a review when cases like this are botched. Mrs. Solomon was a victim, as was her son, of Michael Hector's crime which resulted from mistakes by Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board and they are charged with investigating themselves in the wake of this tragedy.

I raise this point because of the fact that there was an opportunity to also incorporate some of these entrenched rights of victims within the changes we are currently looking at in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act review. As was previously mentioned, there was an opportunity to encompass these recommendations from the entire justice panel and they were simply ignored. Once again, if we could put aside the partisanship and move toward positive change in our justice system, surely it would be much the better for Canadians.

More recently there are other sad examples of this which I do not have the time to cite at this moment. Anyone who has been involved and who has been a victim of crime will know that this is a focus which we in this place must have if we are to improve our justice system.

The bill itself I admit is a positive step. We have arrived at this point through a great deal of effort by all and I commend those individuals. I look forward to continuing to work with those same individuals in this place and at the justice committee to make improvements.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and his involvement in the development of this bill. I have a specific question to help me think through a solution to a problem which arose this week.

Many years ago a young woman in my constituency was abused repeatedly over a period of time. The abuser was arrested, charged, convicted and served time. Subsequently he finished serving his time and was released back into the community in another province. Many years later he applied for a pardon and was pardoned.

Fifteen years later he has re-emerged in the community and has contacted the victim. In attempting to get a restraining order or a peace bond to keep him away, she has found it extremely difficult because of the pardoning process.

Has that situation arisen before? Was there some discussion of that in the preparation of this bill? Will the passage of this legislation give her some avenues to protect herself?

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

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

I certainly understand the frustration and difficulty that his constituent would feel and that perhaps the hon. member himself must feel.

There is also another piece of legislation coming forward in this place very soon, Bill C-79. I think the issue of pardons, which makes this a rather unique situation where information such as that cannot be shared and cannot be considered by a court in the granting of a peace bond, which this particular victim is seeking, will be addressed better in that legislation than in the bill currently before the House.

A peace bond is certainly a discretionary instrument that a judge has at his or her disposal.

The issue itself of this person's security and her feeling of frustration in not having the information available to her and more importantly the court not having that information available to it in deciding whether or not she has a legitimate case, and obviously she does, to have a peace bond granted, I believe, will be addressed better by Bill C-79.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, was that Bill C-79 or Bill C-69 the member was referring to?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was Bill C-69. Bill C-79 is the bill before the House. I may have misspoken.

I am not going to single anybody out but I will take the opportunity to say that efforts have been made by members of the committee to suggest that, in the context of the new legislation, Bill C-69, certain offences be absolutely excluded from the granting of the pardon, or at least the protection that a pardon provides to prevent the public at large from obtaining knowledge of a previous conviction against the person whether it be a sexual assault or a violent offence. I believe that type of information is pertinent and the public have a right to know to be protected in their communities.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-79, an act which amends the Criminal Code to enhance the protection and participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

As the Minister of Justice stated last week when she tabled the bill, these amendments will strengthen the voice of victims of crime in the criminal justice system and increase resources for provincial and territorial governments to provide services directly to the victims of crime.

It is also important to note that these amendments to the Criminal Code respond to the unanimous recommendations of the all-party report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I take this opportunity to commend the members of the standing committee for their work and their recommendations. The report is entitled “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. The title of the standing committee report is important as it embodies the spirit and intent of these amendments.

The victim of a crime has the right to be informed and to be heard. These amendments provide the victim with a stronger voice, but there is nothing in the legislation that limits the rights of the accused.

Victim advocacy groups have been encouraging the government to ensure that the views and concerns of victims are considered especially on decisions that will impact on their safety, security and privacy. The government's commitment to respond to the concerns of victims of crimes is embodied in this legislation.

The preamble to Bill C-79 is unequivocally clear on this commitment. The preamble is very comprehensive. It addresses why this legislation is necessary, how the government is improving the criminal justice system and encourages greater participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

I draw attention to two specific paragraphs of the preamble which embody the government's commitment to the victims of crimes and their concerns.

Paragraph 4 of the preamble states:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada supports the principle that victims of and witnesses to offences should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system, and should suffer the least amount of inconvenience necessary as a result of their involvement in the criminal justice system.

Paragraph 5 of the preamble goes on to state:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada, while recognizing that the Crown is responsible for the prosecution of offences, is of the opinion that the views and concerns of the victims should be considered in accordance with prevailing criminal law and procedure, particularly with respect to the decisions that may have an impact on their safety, security or privacy.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to state that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

It is clear from the preamble that the amendments proposed to the Criminal Code need to reconcile the rights of victims and witnesses with the rights of the accused but at the same time ensure that victims and witnesses are treated with courtesy, compassion and respect.

While there are a number of amendments included in Bill C-79 to enhance the protection and participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, I would specifically like to highlight two provisions. First, I will talk about the victim surcharge on offenders.

The amendments include changes to the victim surcharge imposed on offenders. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected by the provincial and territorial governments and used to provide programs, services and assistance to the victims of crimes within their jurisdiction.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-79 would: would make the victim surcharge automatic to ensure that it is applied consistently to all offenders; and change the amendments to the surcharge to provide mandatory minimum amounts. Under Bill C-79, the surcharge amounts will be: 15% of any fine imposed on the offender; if no fine is imposed, $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and $100 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment; or, an increased surcharge at the discretion of the judge in the appropriate circumstances.

The victim surcharge revenue will continue to remain in the jurisdiction within which it is collected. These amendments would significantly increase the revenue available for victim programs and services in all provinces and territories. It would be administered by the provinces and territories.

The constituents in my riding, led by a wonderful organization known as Parkdale Community Watch, have always urged me to support the passing of legislation that requires moneys to be reinvested into those communities and individuals affected by crime. This legislation is certainly an important step toward addressing their concerns.

The second amendment I will address is the victim impact statements. I highlight this because it is very important. Victim impact statements have an incredible role to play. A victim impact statement is a written statement prepared by the victim and considered by the court at the time of the sentencing of an offender. It allows victims to participate in the proceedings by describing the impact of the crime on them and on their families.

Proposed amendments under the legislation would ensure that the victim is permitted to read an impact statement at the time of sentencing if he or she wishes to do so. Under the present legislation, a judge is required to consider the written statement but allowing the victim to read it remains discretionary. Under the amendments, the judge will be required to ask before imposing the sentence whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare such a victim impact statement. The proposed amendments would authorize adjournment to permit a victim to prepare a statement or submit other evidence to the court about the impact of the crime on himself or herself and his or her family.

The amendments would further require that victim impact statements be considered by courts and review boards following a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Lastly, the amendments clarify that at proceedings to determine whether an offender sentenced to life in prison should have his or her parole eligibility reduced, the information provided by the victim may be oral or written. At present, the Criminal Code provides that any information provided by the victim will be considered. However, in practice some victims have actually been discouraged from making an oral statement.

Bill C-79 is just one of the proposals which is part of an overall government strategy to respond to the victims of crime.

Last month the Minister of Justice tabled the youth criminal justice act which also recognized in its principles the important role of victims in the youth justice system and their need for information. In addition, the youth criminal justice act acknowledged the important role played by communities toward combating crime in the community.

The creation of a policy centre for victims of crime announced in December by the Minister of Justice is a key element of the strategy to respond to the needs of victims of crime. The policy centre will ensure that all federal policies and legislation take into consideration the views of these victims of crime. The new victims policy centre will manage, co-ordinate and enhance all federal initiatives relating to victims and become a centre of expertise on emerging national and international trends in victim advocacy, legislation and services.

Last week when the minister tabled Bill C-79, she stated:

These measures are important steps forward to reform the way the criminal justice system treats victims. But our work is not over. Through our new victims policy centre, we will ensure that the victim's perspective will always be considered in the development of any future legislation.

While I certainly applaud the minister on the amendments to the Criminal Code embodied in Bill C-79, I must also comment on her statement that our work is not over and use this as an opportunity to present my constituents' concerns again, as voiced by Parkdale Community Watch, as to what we should examine in the future.

My constituents feel that in future we must continue to involve our communities to a greater degree, along with individual victims of crime. While Bill C-79 is the first step to ensuring that an individual victim is permitted to read an impact statement at the time of sentencing, I also believe that we should examine the possibility of giving communities the opportunity to read a community impact statement at the time of sentencing. The value of community impact statements must be acknowledged, particularly in cases of alleged victimless crimes such as drugs and prostitution where the impact on the community is significant.

I would like to confirm my support for Bill C-79. It is truly an important step in reforming the way the criminal justice system treats its victims, but most important, it shows that the government has not only listened to the victims and their advocacy groups but it has also proceeded to address their concerns.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting on the justice committee which produced the report “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”, which is behind the legislation that we are currently dealing with.

I have only been in the House for two years, but I have never heard such compelling testimony as the testimony I heard from those who came before the committee. While sitting there, many of us would take off our glasses, stop reading the reports and literally put down our pens. For those of us who had been involved in the legal system in this country, we would hang our heads in shame listening to the horrific crimes that these people had been subjected to and the awful way in which our criminal justice system had treated many of them.

Mr. Speaker, you and I share a profession outside of the House which has, how shall I say, a problematic reputation at best, probably second only to that of politicians. Frankly, this was and is a shot across the bow of the justice system, a justice system that this country is supposed to serve.

This is a warning to judges, crowns, defence attorneys and the police that parliament and the public are watching. Parliament and the public will hold the custodians of our justice system accountable for how they implement legislation and how they treat many of the most vulnerable victims in society. Victims cannot be taken for granted. Victims want a voice, not a veto.

In some respects the title of our report captures the essence of what we had heard. Victims want to be able to say, “This is what happened to me. This is how the criminal act impacted on me and my family”. They want to be heard and to be taken seriously. They want the justice system to sit up and take notice when they speak.

In October 1998 the justice committee produced the report “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. The chair of that committee at the time, the late Shaughnessy Cohen, worked tirelessly in producing the report. I would also note the contributions of the member for Surrey North and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who were both were very active in the production of the report.

I, along with many other committee members, held town hall meetings to ask members of our constituencies what they thought. We held the meeting in June 1998 and produced our own report. We had contributions from Barbara Hall, the former mayor of Toronto and now the national chair of the crime prevention initiative; Tim Danson, a noted civil rights lawyer; Priscilla de Villiers, the chair of CAVEAT; Carol Sparling from the National Parole Board; and, Terry Spencer from the Toronto Police Victim Services. We had an excellent meeting. My constituents were fully engaged in the discussion. These people were truly very articulate and those who came away from the meeting were very impressed by the extent of their knowledge and ability to articulate the problem.

That report, along with other members' reports, became part of the report that made 17 recommendations to the government in October 1998 to which the government, to its great credit, responded in a very detailed fashion in December 1998 and dedicated its response to the late chair. In its response it quoted extensively from the report and promised to make every effort to fulfill the spirit of the recommendations in a timely manner.

The tabling of the bill in April 1999 is a substantive response to the committee's recommendations. It is both timely and substantive and, I would argue, a good response in less than six months of the committee's report.

I will not go into a lot of detail right now, but I do want to pick up on a couple of points that may be of interest to members. The creation of a policy centre for the victims of crime is a good idea. All legislation should be looked at through the lens of the victim. The only fear I have is that it will raise false expectations among the victims' communities that have become something of an ombudsman's office. I think we need to be very clear about that.

The second area is with respect to victim impact statements. In the proposed amendments, it would ensure that the victim is permitted to read an impact statement at the time of sentencing if he or she wishes to do so. At present, the judge is required to consider the written statement, but allowing the victim to read it is discretionary. It removes the judge's discretion in this matter.

It also requires the judge to ask before imposing sentence whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare a statement. It further authorizes adjournments to permit a victim to prepare a statement or to submit other evidence about the impact of the crime. After reading that, I wondered why someone had not thought of it before. In some respects that encapsulates why the public is in part so upset with the system of justice that we have in the country.

It requires that victim impact statements be considered by courts and review boards following a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It also clarifies that at proceedings to determine whether an offender who is sentenced to life in prison should have his or her parole eligibility reduced, the information provided by the victim may be oral or written. At present the Criminal Code provides that any information provided by the victim will be considered. However, in practice some victims have been discouraged from making statements.

This is a good piece of legislation and I compliment the government. This time I think it got it right. The bill deserves the support of all members. I hope it will receive the support of all members and arrive in committee in a timely fashion so that the committee can determine whether it is in fact an adequate response to the testimony that the committee has already heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his very insightful and in-depth remarks. It certainly signifies his awareness and his contribution as well to the process and to the justice committee in particular.

In the latter part of his remarks, he raised a very important issue with respect to a false impression or perhaps an unfair expectation on the part of victims upon hearing that there will be this policy office, which I think he characterizes correctly as being a lens on a lot of other federal legislation in terms of efforts to improve victims' participation in our justice system.

I would like to follow up on the issue of an office of an ombudsman filling the need of many victims for information sharing. I am sure the member conducted town hall meetings. I know I conducted one in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Repeatedly the number one complaint of victims was that they did not receive the information quickly. Sometimes they even received contradictory information from various sources in the justice system.

One person in particular who has a very strong feeling in this regard is Lynne Charron who lost her father Ferdinand to a terrible murder. She was very much in favour of an office where information could be obtained, a 1-800 number, and a system that would provide timely and important information to victims on matters pertaining to their cases which might be pending before the criminal justice system. Equally important, in the aftermath when a person is incarcerated and parole is pending or rehabilitative programs are being attempted, victims have an ongoing unwilling attachment to a person who has intruded upon their lives. Members such as the member for Surrey North can certainly attest to that.

Does the hon. member opposite feel that this is an important step his government could take? The next step would be a national victims office with an ombudsman, similar to the correctional investigators office, to provide these needs to victims in a timely fashion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I know how to respond to the good question of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The initial response of the government is to create an office which creates a lens on legislation. To move it to the stage of an ombudsman, a quasi-ombudsman or 1-800 number, we on this side of the House are tempted to hide behind the old federal-provincial saw, that all we do here is create laws and the provinces administer them.

Until and unless the provinces were on side in this manner I could express a wish as a private member that we would move in that direction. I agree with the member's analysis of the testimony that time after time we heard people just want information. They wanted to know about their situation in the system, whether it was at first hearing, at second hearing, at sentencing or at parole. That is all people want to know. That is perfectly legitimate.

Unless the provinces could be signed up to a 1-800 system, a website system or whatever, I could express all the wishes I would like from this side of the table as a government member, but I do not know how I would implement them. When it goes back before the committee possibly we could go over it. Maybe we should call in some provincial AGs and ask why we cannot set up this system.

In terms of wish, I would agree with the hon. member. In terms of the ability to fulfil it, we are only talking about one-half of the problem.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-79. I will take some time to give the House and those watching an idea of the history of victims rights in the House of Commons, where they came from and why they got here.

To some extent the government is misleading people in Canada. I hear time and time again the government's initiative on victims rights, that it has done such a wonderful thing. It is a bit of a sad tale to tell because it is really not true. It was never initiated by the Liberal government. In fact it was done in spite of the Liberal government, quite frankly, and I will show that today.

I do not want to dwell too long on that. We can thank the victims and those who were involved with them for all their hard work to get it to this point. Much more needs to be done yet, and we have to talk about that as well.

In 1993 when I first became a member of parliament I talked with many victims of crime. I remember being in the living room of Chris and Sue Simmonds, talking to two people who were very heart broken at their daughter's murder and wondering how they were ever going to get through such a legal industry and such a morass of difficulties on top of one thing after another.

It was more after the death of their daughter that they were so coldly treated by the system. I began to wonder even then in 1993, early in my stages of involvement in it, just why that was, why victims were so poorly treated in our society when it seemed the criminal had so many rights.

I began a fairly long and arduous exercise to find out more about the system. I attended many court trials. I spoke with victims across the country. I spent a great deal of time looking at prisoners rights and trying to compare prisoners rights to victims rights.

In 1994 I initially wrote the national victims bill of rights and presented it as a private member's bill. We looked at it and asked what we really wanted and how to get from there. All along victims rights groups were growing and growing and speaking out and speaking out. Yet nothing seemed to get done.

We brought the issue to the House of Commons many times during 1995 and 1996. It was difficult to have a debate on it because the Liberal government actually did not have an understanding of what we were looking for as politicians and what victims were really looking for.

I want to show what I mean by that. I recall asking the justice minister of the day many questions about victims rights. The answers he gave us were perplexing. In fact one of the comments of the justice minister was that the Reform Party was exploiting the very tragedies it pretended to decry. It hurt a great deal when he said that to me, in particular, because that was not what it was about. There was no exploitation at all. We were merely carrying a message forward. We see today that there is victims rights legislation, so those kinds of rhetorical, hard crusted comments by the government were needless and were quite unfair.

The minister made another comment on March 11, 1997. He said that the importance he placed on their experience, the importance he placed on respecting victims, was reflected in the many pieces of legislation they had brought forward in the House to protect and safeguard the position of victims in the criminal justice system. They were talking about gun bills, the Young Offenders Act and all kinds of other bills, but they were not addressing the issue. The issue is victims rights.

After we developed a national victims bill of rights, I can recall that in my town of Abbotsford, B.C., we had a rally in 1995. One of the speakers at that rally was my colleague from Surrey North. He was not elected then. There were about 2,200 people there. The message became clearer and clearer to Ottawa that there was a growing problem, a growing need for more rights for victims, always comparing it to the rights of criminals. That was the largest rally of its time. It told us a lot about that growing movement, much of it due to the hard work and dedication of the victims themselves and victims rights groups.

We continued to raise questions in the House of Commons about it in 1995 and 1996. There was still not an understanding by the government. Late in 1995 I took a motion to the Reform Party assembly and it was overwhelmingly endorsed. It is now a part of our principles and policies that victims rights should be front and centre and should have certain principles involved in them. We moved it on from there. We had more questions in the House of Commons, but there still was not quite an understanding of what needed to be done.

On April 29, 1996, we tabled a motion in the House to get the work started on a national victims bill of rights. The justice minister and I had a great debate on that day. To my surprise he actually admitted at that point that we needed to do something.

From there it went to committee. I can recall being with victims in the justice committee who presented what had to be done. We were basically all on side at that point.

It was a difficult job convincing members on opposite side. When they stand to say we should look at what they have done for us, they should first thank us for teaching them, thank the victims who showed us as well, and look at what we are helping them do. That would be a much better approach.

I want to talk briefly about what was originally in the victims bill of rights. There are some who say that some of this is provincial so we should not deal with it. Personally I think that is hogwash, particularly since I had commitments in the House, and I can produce them, that the government was prepared to talk to the provinces about those other issues which were administratively their responsibility and to get them at least committed to the point where we were consistent across the country. That is one of the greatest problems in the country. From Newfoundland, to Nova Scotia, to British Columbia there are different processes. That does not help victims.

One of the first things we wanted to do was to define what a victim was. I understand that the committee is looking at talking about about that later. I am not interested in talking about it later. We should be talking about it now. Originally we defined a victim as any one who suffered as a result of an offence physical or mental injury or economic loss; or any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the individual against whom the offence was perpetrated; or anyone who had an equivalent relationship, not necessarily a blood relative.

We have to relook at the definition of a victim in the Criminal Code and all our documents. That job cannot be set aside today or tomorrow for expediency. They cannot tell us to look at what they have done, that the victims legislation is done and that the rest of it can be forgotten until some other day. We have to look at it now and be proactive on these issues.

Another right victims should have had was written into the original national victims bill of rights, that they should be informed of their rights at every stage of the process including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any available victim services. I hear again that is a provincial jurisdiction. That may be so but it does not exclude the House of Commons from saying that it will attempt to do its very best to work with provincial organizations to try to make it consistent across the country.

Another one of those rights was to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process including but not restricted to notification of any arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender from custody, conditions of release, parole dates, et cetera. All information was to be made available upon request.

Some say that is provincial jurisdiction. Some say that it is the CRA, the Conditional Release Act. I suggest the House take seriously the issues which victims are concerned about and make a commitment in the legislation that something will be done.

How do we do that? We can make an appendix to any legislation we wish. We can make a commitment in the House of Commons. We can put it in a throne speech, which will likely be coming up next fall. All kinds of commitments can be made. Judging from my six years of experience in the House of Commons, without these commitments it will not get done.

I believe it necessary to go through a couple of the things we were looking for in a national victims bill of rights which are not in this legislation and which this government really has to pursue.

The first would be the right to be informed on a timely basis of the details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the defence. I cannot tell the House how many times I have spoken with people who have been absolutely flabbergasted by the fact that plea bargains or deals were made when they had no idea they were being made. Some would say, the technocrats I suppose, that it is provincial jurisdiction.

The fact of the matter is, we can do more with the provinces. The justice minister meets with the attorneys general of every province every year. Commitments can be obtained. To say that we cannot do it because it is within someone else's jurisdiction is wrong.

Another right is the right to know why charges were not laid, if that is the decision of the crown or the police. Some say again that it is within provincial jurisdiction, but if we talk to victims they will say “Will someone please make up their mind? Could we please get help?” Is it not our duty in the House of Commons to at least try to convince provinces on a wholesale basis to undertake these commitments?

We need protection from anyone who intimidates, harasses or interferes with the rights of the victim. We must have the police follow through on domestic violence charges. Once a victim files a complaint the police should have the authority to follow it through to the end. Do not tell me that this is a police problem and that we are not responsible in the House of Commons. If we adopt a head in the sand approach in the House of Commons in trying to get consistency across this nation, then more victims will suffer.

The last issue we had written in the national victims bill of rights way back in 1994 was to know if the person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmittable disease. That seems reasonable to me. I have dealt with two individuals who have had that problem. One young lady was raped by an individual who finally was deported. He would not give consent to be medically tested, so he never was.

Those are the kinds of rights we need in this country. I will not be satisfied in saying that we have done all we can, the rest is up to the provinces, or the rest will come in another bill. I do not think that is practical. I think we have to do all we can, whenever we can, whatever the jurisdiction.

Way back in 1994 and 1995 when I was involved in this there were a lot of people who went the extra mile to fight for victims rights. It is necessary to thank people like Ron and Corrine Schaefer. Corrine's sister Angela was murdered. Corrine is now a member of CAVEAT and has done a lot of good, hard work. Both of them have been and still are avid supporters of CAVEAT.

Chris and Sue Simmonds initially helped tremendously in drafting and reviewing the national victims bill of rights.

Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt are people I have met along the way, sincere people who are doing the very best they can to improve the rights of victims in this country.

I should also mention Bula, who has had a very tough time as a victim. She was sexually molested by an individual who was allowed out of a prison on a day pass. That individual had 63 prior convictions. These are courageous people.

I should also mention Heather Fougere and Gail and Terry Smith. Heather and Dean are the aunt and uncle of Tanya Smith who was murdered in my town of Abbotsford. They have now joined the ranks of victims, which is sad to say, but they are also turning a negative into a positive in doing the very best they can to improve things in Canada.

I also want to thank Rosalie Turcotte from Mission, British Columbia. I want to thank Rosie from Windsor, Ontario, whom I spent a great deal of time with when preparing a private member's bill which dealt with prisoners changing their names.

All of these people and many more deserve much more than just some things in victims legislation. I very much encourage this House to do more. We should not stop here.

I want to talk about a rally that is going to occur which will shake this nation out of its complacency. The rally will consist of grassroots people from all over this country who will bring the issue of drugs to the House of Commons.

On May 27 we intend to hold a very large rally in my riding. The theme of the rally will be “Drugs: Are You Ready to Fight?” I would encourage members of the House on both sides to consider this very serious issue.

I have gone through the national drug strategy of the Liberal government. I have been on the streets in many difficult situations where drugs are everywhere. When we talk to the people on the streets who are trying to help, they look at the national drug strategy that the government has produced—and I am not belittling the government—and they say it is not helping on the street, that this is rhetorical stuff, that these dollars do not reach the street.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hesitant to interrupt the member, but I think he is carrying what would be constituted as a prop, which is contrary to the rules of the House. I am talking about what is on the back of his speaking notes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Surely the hon. member knows that props are not allowed in the House and I have not seen what is on the back of his notes.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will not belittle the issue of drugs by commenting on the remark of the member. If I had another ten minutes the member would wear that comment. However, I will say that the issue of drugs is not a matter of a point of order. The issue of drugs in this country is serious.

[An hon. member]

Watch who you are talking to.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have just been told to watch who I am talking to. I have a feeling that we are going to be dragging the government through a knothole on the drug issue just like we did on victims rights. That is why I brought this issue up in my last two minutes.

We will take on the issue of drugs in this country. Members opposite can be sure that we will be as vociferous as we were on victims rights. Victims rights came to this House because of this party. Government members can be sure that they will not duck under the rocks they come from on that issue either.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Madam Speaker, I was most interested in my colleague's comments about drugs. I wonder if the member wishes to comment on the DARE program, drug awareness resistance education. I am sure the member is aware of it. I wonder how it is working in British Columbia and whether the member thinks it is something we should be helping.

I would tell the member that I learned recently that 37,000 Alberta boys and girls in grade 6 took the course last year. It is a one hour course which lasts for 17 weeks. I wonder if the member has any comments as to how he thinks the DARE program is working in British Columbia and elsewhere.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome that comment. I have a feeling that the member opposite is probably as concerned as we are about this issue.

The DARE program, educationally, appears to be a very good program. There are many educational programs involving drugs today. What I see, however, is a lack of co-ordination nationally on all of these programs.

When I go into one needle exchange in one city, in one small office, and find out that there are 2.5 million needles per annum issued out of that office, I say that not only is this a national priority, but what is happening with the DARE program and all of the other programs? What are we missing that is not going from education into the addiction aspect of it?

I was in Sydney, Nova Scotia and Cape Breton last week and I was surprised to see a needle exchange there. Typically, needle exchanges are in areas where there are really very serious problems.

I think this issue has crept up on us and is to the point now where it is not just education, it is that we have to stop treating drug addicts and people who commit crimes because of their addiction as criminals and look at them as a serious health issue. We have to look at those who are non-addicted and selling drugs as serious criminals and do something very serious with them.

I welcome the hon. member's question. I hope that when we get into this seriously, and we will, like it or not, we will get into this together. We have to look at all of the educational programs, all of the rehabilitation programs and all of the criminal aspects of legislation and make them work right across the country.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I took note of the fact that the hon. member was in my home town recently. I share with him the concern. I know he was surprised to see a needle exchange program in my community. I can share with him the reflections of many of the community groups that I have met with on this issue.

I want to go back to the hon. member's comments on the issue before the House today, which is the legislation providing for the role of victims in the criminal justice system. In my comments I talked about what I thought each of the parties brought to the table, as well as the participants. One of the things I talked about was rights and the competing balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim. We have to find that balance.

I ask this in all seriousness because I am curious. The member refers to a bill of rights for victims. As I see it, there is a charter of rights for all Canadians. I know his party has long said that Canadians are equal in every aspect. If we all have rights under the charter, would the member then propose special rights for victims in a bill of rights and then perhaps special rights for those accused and special rights for other groups? Or is he proposing that we do away with the charter of rights for all Canadians and have particular rights for different groups?

I ask this because I see competing rights and I see rights as something that we all share and we all have to preserve. It is perhaps a philosophical question, but I ask it.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, actually it is a very good question. The charter of rights and freedoms has created some problems. What I did initially before I wrote the national victims bill of rights was to look at the prison system and compare the rights of criminals to the rights of victims.

When I looked at all of the charter fights, most of them, if not all of them, were for criminals. They ended up with the right to vote. They ended up with the right to refuse work. They ended up with Canada pension plan benefits. They ended up with virtually all of the rights and even more in prisons than they had when they were outside. They had the rights, but they did not have the privileges. I think we have mixed up the rights and the privileges.

Today and in the past victims have felt like third class citizens. They have felt like some party that is outside of the exercise when it has come to going to court or any other instance they were involved in. Many a lawyer has said publicly and to me that victims have no place in the courtroom. The crime was against the crown and the lawyers have ended up outside a criminal justice system and inside a legal industry where the best buck gets the best lawyer.

Victims were basically being told to go away, to keep quiet, to say nothing, “We will deal for you, we will do all of the plea bargaining, we will do everything. Don't worry, we will look after you”. The fact is they were not being looked after. They were treated like third class citizens. That is why it has all come about. It is unfortunate.

We should all have the same rights and freedoms, with the exception of some of the rights and freedoms given to criminals in prisons. I do not agree with all that.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we have the originator of the original victims bill of rights here talking about it, could I seek unanimous consent that we extend questions and comments by 10 minutes?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?