Debates of April 20th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I work a lot with the hon. member and I thank him for his comments. I worked a lot with him before I became a member of this place.

Would he care to elaborate on some of the more common complaints? What were the major complaints he was hearing from victims on their part in the process? Does he have any idea as to why it took so long to finally get to this day? Where was the resistance coming from if indeed there was any?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Surrey North asking for the extra 10 minutes.

One of the things that touched me greatly was talking to victims. The member for Surrey North will probably not remember when I first met him. We were talking to some young kids in New Westminster. He was speaking to them and it touched me greatly. Here was a person who was trying to get a system changed from the outside and not in the House of Commons, who knew what he needed and what the problems were, yet it just was not coming together. Who was listening?

One of the frustrating things that happened and why it took so long to get victims rights in legislation in this country is that there was not the comprehension on the other side. The thought on the other side was that we were helping victims by bringing in Bill C-68, the gun law. It was the victim out there who said “Somebody in my family was murdered with a gun, but I am treated like dirt in a courtroom”. Those were the kinds of issues.

I recall sitting at a sentencing hearing. One of the victims in the room was listening to a written victim impact statement she had prepared. She leaned over to me and said “I don't think that is mine”. We found out that the thing had been purged so badly. We asked about it and the defence lawyer said “We had to take certain things out of the victim impact statement because it would harm the credibility of my client” who had murdered her sister. She was asking what rights she had as that guy was protected. Those are the kinds of things victims were asking about.

I have another story. I recall sitting in a room with a lady whose house had been torched by her ex-husband. She asked the system to tell her when her ex-husband would be getting out of prison, where he would be located, how long he would be there, and of any reports on how well he was doing. She was afraid of this fellow. They never told her a thing. And then he showed up with the gasoline and a car and drove through the carport and set the place on fire. She asks “Who cares about me?” That is what victims rights are all about: “who cares about me?”

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have already asked a question, but I would like to salute the member and his colleague from Surrey for the work they have done on victims rights. It is a very important matter in their ridings, my riding and every riding across the country.

Going back to drugs, I believe the figure is 240 residents of Vancouver died of heroin overdoses in the first six months of last year. That is more than one a day. Sharing his concern about drugs enormously, I wonder if he would say anything more about why he thinks those 240 fellow human beings might have died the way they did last year and why people continue to die in Vancouver and elsewhere in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, if it were just 240 residents, but it is much higher than that as we speak. I was in Vancouver's downtown east side a week and a half ago. I was in one building and watched a person who had overdosed be carried out.

The drug market is extremely profitable. I have talked to people who have sold drugs. I talked to a 14 year old who was doing community time for selling cocaine. I sat down with this young fellow and said, “Why do I not help get your grades 10, 11 and 12 and then we can help you through post-secondary school”. I had previous connections with school districts. This 14 year old looked at me and said “Listen fellow, I make 18 to 20 grand a month which is non-taxable profit. I have a lawyer on retainer and I have a” whatever car it was. He was not even old enough to have a driver's licence. Profit is the problem.

Meanwhile there are people who are so hooked on drugs that their job is to get kids out of the schools, young girls in particular. They come from Vancouver and go to the Fraser Valley and get kids on this stuff. They give it away to start with. They get them hooked and then it is on with the home invasions, the break and enters, and so on and so forth. I cannot impress upon the House how important this issue is. I think my colleague knows that. The co-operation we get could make the difference in this nation as to how we deal with all these issues.

By the way, the speakers we have for the May 27 rally are very serious people. There is a young lady who has been a drug addict and lived on the streets on Vancouver's east side for four years. She has been off it for a year but of course, addicts are never ever off it. There is the Washington state drug enforcement administration and the Vancouver narcotics squad. There is a mother whose daughter is actually on the streets in Vancouver. I am happy to announce that George Chuvalo will be attending as well. George has lost three of his kids to heroin.

This rally is not a show. It is not a partisan political body. I invite all members to show their support. There will be local and provincial politicians there. We should all go and listen and say we can do more about this problem.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my congratulations to the members of the Reform Party justice team, particularly the member for Langley—Abbotsford and the member for Surrey North who worked so hard on this issue. I know the member for Langley—Abbotsford has promoted the victims bill of rights for a long time. It is nice to see that it has come but it is unfortunate it has taken so long for the government to act.

The member has talked at length about the victims who have come in contact with him. One issue is the definition of a victim. It is there in this bill and it is defined. I would like the member's comments and thoughts on what the definition of victim should be.

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

Madam Speaker, the definition of a victim has to be changed. It has to acknowledge anyone who suffers as a result of an offence, physical or mental injury, economic loss, or any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the individual on whom the offence was perpetrated.

I can recall one case, and I know my colleague from Surrey North knows the individuals as well. I will not mention the names. Assistance was attempted for the individual's wife and the system said she was not a victim. Her daughter had been murdered and the system said she was not a victim. How appalling. How could we be so callous, so careless about that? Can we not make a better definition of what a victim is?

I am sure my colleague could speak a lot better than I on this subject. It is not necessarily the individual who was murdered but those left behind who are victims.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I got into politics I was somewhat cynical about the whole process of politics.

The member for Langley—Abbotsford lives in a community neighbouring mine. I saw a number of articles in the newspapers having to do with issues he was raising. It made a lot of sense, particularly in the area of victims rights. I know there were a number of incidents in my own community where victims were created by acts of criminal negligence.

There was a young gal whose sister was killed by a drunk driver just a few blocks from my home. I know the member was involved in that situation. His involvement in the lives of those victims is ongoing, as well as others he mentioned in his speech. I want to thank him for taking a stand on that. That is one of the reasons I got involved in this process, to make some positive changes.

It may be difficult in a short period of time, but I would like my colleague to give a few personal reflections of his involvement in this issue and how it has impacted on him and motivated him to seek these changes in such a positive way as he has.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We do share the same surrounding areas and in fact our colleague from Surrey North is not that far away.

We do not have a unique market on compassion in this party. It is all through the House.

We have seen a lot of crime in our day. We have seen a lot of victims. As we have seen today, victims in fact are elected to the House of Commons. This is no small issue. This is serious.

I can only reflect this about all the people I have met, their desire and willingness to make a difference and change. I have to plead with the government since it is a majority government to go further with victims rights. Do not stop here. Much more has to be done. I think the government has the message now. It is on the first step of the ladder. Let us not stop. It has our support certainly for progression on victims rights.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I express my gratitude to my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford mainly for his seriousness about his work.

In the last parliament by 1996 he was able to introduce in the House a victims bill of rights which was strongly supported.

I know the reason the member worked so hard on that bill. I was there on a number of occasions with him when we had spent hours visiting with people who were victims of crime, listening to their stories, listening to how things were developing in their lives, and listening to some of the tragedies that were taking place. It just was not answering the call.

I watched the member put together this package and present it with great pride, as he should. He had full support of victims across the land from CAVEAT, CRY and FACT. A number of organizations commended him. When it left the House and was sent to the committee that was the last we heard of it.

To me that presents a serious problem. In 1996 a valuable document was presented in the House. Why is it now, three years later, that we will finally talk about this extremely important issue? My friend and colleague from Edmonton mentioned drugs and what we needed to do because the situation was so serious.

It is extremely serious. I am now visiting reserves with the department of Indian affairs. I am saddened to find that in many of our reserves in the last little while there have been a number of suicide victims. Those family members are telling me that it is mainly because of drugs. It is becoming so common that they do not even make the newspaper any more. In my own province of Alberta I know of at least six suicides in the last few weeks which have not even made the newspapers because they are so commonplace.

We are talking in the House briefly today about what we will do to prevent having future victims. That is one issue. We cannot have a three year delay. Three years can be terribly disastrous to a number of individuals.

I sat in a home on one reserve with a mother who had lost three children to suicide because of drugs. Her plea was for help because she did not want to lose any more of her kids. I talked to a fellow, Mike Calder, who works on the streets of Winnipeg with young aboriginal people who come from the reserves and are being roped into gangs that are promoting drugs, prostitution and all the evil things we could think about. Kids under 12 years of age are being scooped up and used by those who are profiting from these kinds of things.

My whole point in raising this point is that we cannot continually sit in the House and wait for three years to do something about a problem that is progressing so horribly. We have many people dying on the streets in Vancouver, as the member just said. How bad does it have to get before we would consider it to be an emergency and maybe decide to do something about it?

I am thinking about a person who was convicted in 1998 of a drunken driving charge. He had killed four people as a result of a stupid decision to drive while drinking. His victims lived in Saskatchewan and were killed on an Alberta highway. At the scene the individual was very upset that it had happened. He admitted his guilt. It was proven that he was terribly intoxicated. Yet it took 18 court cases to deal with what seemed so obvious. He immediately pleaded guilty. He was immediately remorseful. All the things were in the right place to deal with it.

The families of the people who were killed on the highway drove back and forth to Calgary 18 times in over two years to finally hear the verdict for the individual who had taken the lives of these people. It took 18 court cases on a cut and dry drunk driving case. He was obviously guilty and had pleaded guilty.

I cannot begin to describe the trauma and the major effect it had on the lives of the victims. I have become well aware of them over a period of time. There was the trauma of not knowing what the justice system would do for them. Eighteen courts cases is very profitable for the legal system but it does nothing for a justice system.

The military used to have a code, and I hope it still has, that some things need to be in place to have good justice. It has to be fast. It needs to be firm. It needs to be fair. It needs to be final. It used to be called the four f s. It would not take long to make decisions on cases like that one. If it had to be investigated it would take a lot of time and energy. Four families were involved. They lost their children in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. For over two years they drove back and forth from Saskatchewan waiting for this cut and dry case to be dealt with.

Finally the House has a victims bill before it three years later. The victims have been calling for it for ages. It was introduced and passed in 1996 but something happened. It died somewhere. Is it because we have become so political that an idea from my Reform colleague is not acceptable by a Liberal government? Does it have to die at the committee level and then be reproduced later by a Liberal minister so it looks better? If that is the motive we need to examine how we operate in this place.

A five year old girl in Calgary went missing. By evening they found her in a dumpster. She had been murdered. It was very sad. They found the person responsible for her death. It was a next door neighbour who lived across the alley behind them. He had taken the little girl out of her yard.

His cry to the police was that the little girl had been coming on to him. He was 47 years old. They spent time and energy on him. The 47 year old individual received psychological guidance. He even went to the hospital to be checked over. I cannot imagine it but he received legal aid. All kinds of assistance were overflowing from our system to him.

The mother was a single parent and had two other children. She suffered a great loss when this little five year old girl was taken. The only counselling they got was from friends. The only professional medical help they could get was through psychology, psychiatry or whatever for which she paid herself. There was no program offered to help them overcome the grief they were going through.

However, the 47 year old man who claimed to have been led astray by this little girl was to go to a place where thousands of dollars would be spent to provide some kind of rehabilitation program for him.

For months and months it went on. Organized victim groups went to the home of this mother to hold her hand and give her a shoulder to lean on. There was absolutely no help from the system whatsoever.

We recognize the serious problems faced by victims in the land. In 1996 it was passed in the House, sent to committee and lost. 1999 rolls along and we finally get to doing something about it. What kind of a procedure is that?

In 1994 the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act failed dismally. The government announced that something had to be done with that act. Now it is 1999 and, lo and behold, we are to have a new act. Nothing has changed in the meantime. There are still all kinds of problems. We concentrate so heavily on the rights of the criminals that we have completely forgotten the victims involved and how protecting them is so essential.

On behalf of my friend from Edmonton, we cannot delay fighting drugs any longer. We have to get at it. We have to consider it to be extremely serious and deal with it. It is time to put partisan politics completely aside when young people all across the country are dying on our streets from drugs.

I do not believe there is anyone in this place who would not co-operate with another person to help alleviate that problem. I do not believe that for a moment. Let us not do anything that would cause the kinds of differences that would make that happen. Let us just agree that there is a problem and, for heaven's sake, let us work jointly together to solve it.

A lot of it has to do with poverty. In 1993 when I came here there were one million children living in poverty. Now I hear talk about 1.5 million. That is not solving the problem. It seems to me like it is going in the wrong direction.

Let us start thinking about where we are spending our money and where it can have the best effect. I agree that it was extremely nice of our heritage minister to spend $25 million to see to it that everybody got a flag, but there are children's aid societies all across the land that could really have used that money.

Why can we not make victims of crime our priority? Young people are a big part of the problem of being victims. They are victims of poverty. They are victims of all the things that could be fixed if we decided to do it.

When something good comes forward like my hon. colleague's bill of rights, something that was acceptable to every hon. member of the House as far as I know, it is time to get rolling and get it done. I know a few members may not have liked it but they were a very few. It went to committee and it died. Why? I do not know. We could only speculate from that point on.

Partisan politics interfere far too much in this place when we need to deal with serious problems. We need to visit more individuals out there who are paying our wages to be here. We need to learn of the problems they are facing and learn of the situations that can be overcome if we get our priorities straight in this place.

Hon. members can object to the spending of money as I just mentioned I did. I can see the headlines tomorrow: the hon. member for Wild Rose is anti-Canada; he did not want the heritage minister to give away flags. That is not the point at all. That is a very good thing to do. It is too bad we do not have an extra $25 million lying around to do that with. However, how can we justify spending money in some areas, like committees for seniors for sexuality, when we have people committing suicide. In Vancouver alone over 300 young people have died this year because of drugs. Victims are growing by the numbers.

I plead with the government to start putting some fast tracks on some of this legislation so it can be debated and we can begin to solve the problems facing the nation. Forget all the rhetoric and baloney that goes on with some of these items. Let us get down to brass tacks and start looking at what the problems are and begin solving them.

I thank the justice minister for getting this at least to the floor of the House. I wish it had happened years ago. It should have. I encourage all members to get behind the bill and support it. Let us continue to look for ways to assist the victims in our land who number in the thousands.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Wild Rose mentioned a family from Saskatchewan who was obliged to come 18 times to court in Alberta on a guilty plea involving a terrible tragedy.

As the member knows, I spent 10 years in court as a defence or crown counsel. Could he tell us, if he has the case at his fingertips, whether the fault for that was because of a probation officer, the judge, the crown or the defence counsel? Can he tell us the reason for this 18 time requirement?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to do that. I only know of the one time that it was delayed. I will have to work in reverse because there was so much going on in between. I was caught off guard that it had lasted so long. I thought it would have been over.

The last time we all thought we were going to court was on the day of sentencing. The families drove in from Saskatchewan. While we were sitting in the courtroom, the judged looked at the guidelines for sentencing only after the conviction had already been made. As he was going down the guidelines he noticed there was one little sentence that had been added in, not by this House but by order in council I presume or however some things get added in to the Criminal Code, “that before sentencing we must consider whether the person is aboriginal or not”.

The judge looked at it and said he was not sure what it meant so he was adjourning court for the day. He scheduled it for five days later so he could investigate what that particular sentence was supposed to mean. Those are the kinds of things that get implemented into the Criminal Code that do not really make sense.

We had a drunk driver who killed four people. Pray tell, what difference would the person's nationality make? The circumstances in that person's life were all brought out through the 18 months in court. Neither his race nor his nationality were discussed until the last day when it was to be suspended. I think the judge was honestly surprised that it was even in there and he had to find out what it meant.

The family drove back to Saskatchewan. Five days later they had to come back again for the final sentencing which, I might add, was a big disappointment to the victims. They thought it should have been a lot more severe than it was.

That is the only incident that I can definitely say happened. I do not really know about the other times.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the terrible impact of drugs on young people and the local communities. He even mentioned the downtown area of my own riding of Vancouver East.

I would like to pursue this a bit further. There is no question that the impact of illegal drugs is overpowering in terms of death and destruction, not just on individual lives but on whole communities. As he has pointed out, this does have a relationship to crime. It marginalizes people and involves them in taking on a criminal lifestyle.

Does the member's party agree that in order to deal with the issue of reducing the harm of obtaining drugs illegally on the street that we have to provide a social and medical response?

I have, for example, a motion coming up that will look at providing a heroin maintenance program. This will enable us to put chronic addicts into the medical system. They should not be out on the street leading very desperate lives and causing harm not only to themselves but to the whole community.

We have heard two members speak about the impact of drugs and the drug trade. Does the Reform Party recognize that there are victims and to continue with a criminalized approach does not really solve anything?

The member also mentioned growing poverty which, I agree, has been a tragedy in the country. I saw a letter the other day from a Reform member suggesting that housing and homelessness were not a national responsibility but a responsibility that should be left to the provinces. I am curious as to the Reform Party's position as articulated by the member today. Growing poverty also impacts on victims of crime and on the people involved in crime. The provision of housing as a basic human need is something that is very critical.

I would also like to know whether the Reform Party supports the provision of housing? Does it feel there is a role for the federal government to play in ensuring that there is no homelessness in Canada?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike a lot of policies and parties I have seen, I think they are lacking a little ability to determine priorities.

The government should know where best to use the money that will benefit Canadians the most. Education, protection and health are always priorities. Our policy strongly suggests that there has to be an amount of money available for those who are severely in need. I am talking about people who are living on welfare and cannot do anything about it. I am talking about the handicapped who are unable to earn money because they cannot get a job. I am talking about a genuine need. That is where we would expect the dollars to go.

We would also expect the dollars to go into native affairs. For example, money should be used to eliminate the poverty and squalor that some of these people are living in on the reserves. I have seen it with my own eyes. It is a shame.

I do not think we need to look at people who are addicted and caught up in the activity of drugs as being anything more than victims. We need a system that is going to help as best it can. I am certainly no expert on what type of program we could have that would help people avoid drugs. We live in a country where drugs are rampant and available in our penitentiaries. This is where it could be corrected, but we have failed to even attempt that. That certainly has a bearing on what happens out in the rest of the world. People are supposed to be sent to penitentiaries for drug rehabilitation yet drugs are more available in the penitentiary than anywhere else. It hardly makes sense to me.

A lot of people come into Canada from foreign lands just for the purpose of distributing drugs and profiting highly. When we catch these individuals committing a crime, why do we want them to stay in Canada and impose their evil deeds on our young people? Let us deport them. Who needs them?

It is thoroughly disgusting to go into cities and see 12 and 13 year olds working as prostitutes. These are children who are victims. When they find the 20 or 30 year old individual who is called their pimp, he gets a small slap on the wrist and is back out finding a new victim. Why do we want to treat those people so kindly? If I suggest there are better solutions to dealing with criminals of that nature, then immediately the words would come out “Oh, the extremist”.

Is it okay that a pimp can manage 11 and 12 year old kids on our streets, get a six month sentence and then be released back into our community? No, it is not okay. We have to take these criminals a little more seriously. They are going to try to suck all our young people into these programs and we have to stop them. We have to make up our minds to do it and get away from the political rhetoric of “Oh, what an evil thought” or “Oh, what an extreme man”.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-79, an act respecting victims of crime.

It is quite amusing that we should be debating a bill that was supposed to be a priority not only to the present Minister of Justice but to the previous Minister of Justice.

In 1996 the former Minister of Justice promised that specific victim legislation would be presented by the fall. Here we are, three years later and two justice ministers later, debating a bill that, according to the present justice minister in June 1997, listed victims rights as one of her top three priorities. It is two years later and we are debating this top priority of the Minister of Justice.

This is one area in which the Reform Party has played a very important role. Three years ago, a supply day motion was presented by the Reform Party, and supported by the House, which put a victims rights bill into the system and before a committee. The justice committee was instructed to come up with legislation that would be reported back to the House. I guess three years late is better than not at all.

I have several concerns with the legislation. Nowhere is the definition of a victim clearly spelled out. As many of us in the House know from visitations from constituents, a victim is not necessarily the person who received the abuse, the attempted murder, the rape or whatever. A victim can be family members; sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, siblings. In many cases there can be lots of victims when these kinds of criminal actions take place.

I would have thought the government would have been a little clearer in the parameters of who it considered to be victims and who it considered should fall under the Criminal Code in reference to the rights given to victims.

The other concern I have is that the committee, in recommending that the legislation be presented to the House, also recommended that there be amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act which would support what this victims rights bill is attempting to do. It is difficult to deal with one and not deal with the other at the same time.

We are faced with dealing with part of an answer to a problem, rather than the entire answer which was recommended by the committee, which was to make amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to install victims rights legislation.

Until we deal with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act we will not know whether we have resolved some of the issues because we will be dealing with them in isolation. This should be going hand in glove to make sure that what the government is attempting to do is in fact what the committee suggested the government do in order to deal with the issue.

Another concern I have, and I would be the first to recognize the difficulty with this given my responsibility, is that the federal government is responsible for the Criminal Code. The federal government is responsible for the legislation which sets the parameters of criminal activity, what the penalties will be, how they will be treated and the like. However, the provincial governments are responsible for the administration of the Criminal Code through their judicial processes.

I am a little concerned that there needs to be a closer working relationship between the provinces and the federal government to make sure that the changes in the Criminal Code are changes that the provincial governments can accept and enact. I believe that the committee which will be established might help with this, that it will attempt to work with the provinces in the enacting or the ability of the provinces to implement the legislation, but I really feel from my experience that there needs to be far more open communication between the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction before things are set in stone.

I would like to believe that the committee which will be established will have the ability to work with the provinces, and to get the provinces to work together, but I would have liked to have seen a little more indication that the federal government had already gone through that process in a much more meaningful way before it produced legislation.

This legislation has been introduced into the House of Commons. The process will allow the government to once again hear from victims and from provinces as to whether they feel this particular drafting of the legislation really deals with the issue. I hope the government, through the committee, will be open to hearing what the victims and their families, support groups and community groups have to say. I hope they will listen to what the provincial governments have to say with respect to the administration of the legislation and that if there are problems, if there are ways of amending the legislation so that it will work better, then I hope the government will be open to bringing those kinds of amendments and changes to the legislation so that we end up with a statute that has meaningful application in today's world.

Those are some of the difficulties that I have with this legislation, but I would like to give credit where credit is due.

The committee which dealt with this issue did a good job, I believe, in making recommendations to the government. The committee went out of its way to listen to victims rights groups and other advocates to try to bring together in its recommendations meaningful changes and meaningful recommendations for legislation that the government could use to address the problem.

What the committee has recommended and what the government has included in Bill C-79 is that the victims are to be informed of their right to prepare a victim impact statement at the time of sentencing. One would think that is pretty common and that it is already done. Surprisingly, it is not already done.

Yes, a victim impact statement can be presented in writing, but there has never been an opportunity for the victim or the victim's family to relate to a court the impact of the criminal activity on themselves. To me it seems almost ridiculous that it has taken so long in the development of our criminal system, our court system and our judicial system for victims to be given this right to express the result of the action. It is far past the time that this recognition be granted. The government is to be commended that it has finally seen the opportunity to make this happen.

The government has given victims a choice. They can read the victim impact statement in court. As I said, this was never a choice which they had before.

It has also given victims of sexual assault or violent crime up to the age of 18 years the right to be protected. They can be protected from cross-examination by the offender. In other words, an offender who is representing himself would not have the right to attack and victimize, if you will, the victim for a second time.

We might feel that does not happen very often, but I think we might be surprised at how often it does happen. I was absolutely appalled when there was a chance that Clifford Olson, whom we all know about, might have an opportunity to cross-examine family members on a section 745 hearing. It was mind-boggling that somebody like that would even have the right to have personal contact to cross-examine a victim.

I think we would be surprised at how often a victim is forced to present themselves in our judicial system before their attacker and be faced with feeling very intimidated and very vulnerable for a second time.

It is interesting that this legislation brings up the issue of police officers and judges considering the victim's safety in bail decisions. How can it possibly be that this was not a consideration before? How can it possibly be that the safety of the victim was never a consideration? Once again I have to commend the government for at least acknowledging that something which seems so common sense finally sees the light of day in legislation.

Another issue it presents is that judges are required to inform the public of the possibility of a section 745 application for early parole for those people who have received life sentences. For those viewers who may not know what a section 745 application is, it is when a convicted first degree murderer who has been given a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years can apply for an early parole release after 15 years. It is interesting that finally there is something in legislation which says it has to be made public when somebody is making that application.

That brings me to the issue of why it should be made public. In many cases a victim wants to make a statement during these hearings. We have these people whose crimes were considered to be violent, a crime of intent or a murder of intent. That is what a first degree murder charge or conviction is. They want to be let out after 15 years instead of facing at least 25 years. It seems to me that one would assume that in a first degree murder charge the families of the murdered individual would have an opportunity to express to the court, in making the decision of whether this individual should have early release, the hardship which that criminal activity caused them. They have never had that opportunity. Finally the victims will have an opportunity to present victim impact statements at section 745 hearings.

That is important to an individual who has been confronted with this kind of situation, who feels they can never leave behind the criminal activity which destroyed their lives because somebody is constantly appearing before a parole board looking for relief. They were never given an opportunity to express their concern or how their life changed because of the criminal act or murder. Finally these individuals will be given that opportunity.

Then there is the protection of victims by the banning of the publication of court transcriptions. That is a given. If a victim has survived and wants to put it behind them, the last thing they want is for the whole world to know what they suffered and to have to relive it over and over.

There are some very valid and very good things that the government has brought to this bill and has addressed through this bill. However, it is sad that it did not go the full nine yards by taking all of the recommendations of the committee, that it did not provide a better definition of victim and that it did not bring in amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act at the same time so we could deal with it in its entirety.

I want to share with the House an individual's story. It is from the local newspaper and is entitled “The Life Destroyed”.

A women is scooped off the street, shovelled into the cab of a pickup truck, raped repeatedly by the passenger while the driver taunts her to “make it good for my friend”.

Twenty minutes later, the vehicle stops. The woman is pushed out, then tossed like a sack of potatoes onto the tailgate, where the driver rapes her. The passenger plunges the knife into her back, twists it, then pulls it out. Then he kicks her body down a bank. At the bottom the body rolls into the cold water of the river.

How could there be anything more horrible, more appalling?

“There is”, said the woman, “the Canadian justice system”.

That is a sorry statement that we should even have to address in the House, but that is what this victim, who suffered what no one of us could possibly imagine living through, who did not think she would live through, had to address.

As appalling, odious and painful the crime, there was worse to come.

The Canadian justice system.

“I was on the witness stand for seven hours. That was longer than the rapes themselves. The court experience was the worst experience I have ever had to go through in my life”.

Here is a young woman whose life was destroyed. She was 18 at the time. She had a child. The child later went with the father because mentally and physically she could not deal with the situation. She is now a bi-polar depressant person. She has to be on medication. She needs counselling. This is six, seven or eight years later.

She goes on to say about one of the rapists:

I am angry because he is getting full parole. He gets to choose what he gets and I have had to suffer for the past eight years.

She does not understand why Lee has had the chance to get out of jail. “I felt that he would be there for the full 12 years. I hate Lee and Bennett”, the two individuals who raped her. “They destroyed my life. I became a terrible mother and I was a good mother before”.

This is an individual whose total life has been destroyed. One of the individuals got 12 years and I believe the other got 18 years. Both of them are out on parole.

For every parole hearing she has to prepare herself mentally and physically to once again address the issue and make statements, to make sure these individuals have to remain accountable for their actions. She is going through this time and time again. While these two individuals get counselling and all the necessities of life in prison, not necessarily the worst of the lot, this individual is struggling to put her life back together with little assistance from the government.

Her medication bills are $165 a month. She cannot afford to go to counselling anymore because it is $80 an hour. Even though this is making a terrible state of her life she has had to drop the counselling. She says that on $10 an hour she just cannot afford it anymore.

Another insult the justice system has hurled at her is that it requires her, the victim of a crime, to undergo a criminal record check before she is allowed in the room where Lee's hearing is to take place.

One really has to wonder when it is the victim who is always victimized again and again by our justice system. It is time to let victims have closure, to move on and to restore the lives that have been destroyed.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for her comments. I acknowledge she is one of the members I worked very closely with on these issues long before I came to this place.

There is another case in her constituency that I find quite troubling. A number of years ago a man murdered his wife, or killed his wife. We cannot call him a murderer because he was accused of manslaughter. He served part of his time. He got five years. He was trying to have his kids visit him. These kids are victims. They are his kids and he killed their mother. He was trying to force them into having visits with him. Now the word is that upon his release he is going to try to get custody.

I am sure she is aware of the case I am talking about. I wonder if she has any comments on that issue.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey North for bringing up that issue. It is not one that is easy to forget.

An individual murdered his wife and it was not a clean murder. He tried to hide it. He tried to clean her up, put her back into bed and pretend she died in the night even though she was battered and bruised. He was convicted of manslaughter. As so often happens we had plea bargaining. It was the easiest way to get a conviction and so he got manslaughter with five years and was out after putting in his required number of years. He requested visitations with his children when he was still on parole. The children had to go through tremendous difficulties, counselling and the whole bit. The youngest child was still nursing when the mother was killed.

Now the family that has taken over the care of these children since he was charged and incarcerated is fighting in the courts at great expense to keep custody of these children knowing the psychological damage that has already happened to these children and which would continue if they were to go back to their father.

It is an ongoing case where the victims have to go into the court system over and over again to try to make sure justice is served.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for many reasons to participate in the debate on Bill C-79. The single most important reason is because we would not be here today if it was not for the Reform Party, for its vision and its pursuit and acknowledgement of victims of crime in our criminal justice system.

Specifically the House owes thanks to the member for Surrey North and the member for Langley—Abbotsford for their dogged determination in forcing the government to acknowledge victims. There is no doubt this government would have procrastinated in the area of victims rights.

This initiative goes back a long way, in fact back to 1996. In the last parliament the member for Langley—Abbotsford introduced a victims bill of rights, an enlightened document. Its genesis was that victims have rights and they should be acknowledged as a fundamental right in our society. For too long, victims were the forgotten element in an impersonal justice system. The member for Langley—Abbotsford is to be commended for his tenacity and his vision.

Following that initiative by the member for Langley—Abbotsford, a Reform Party supply day motion was introduced, debated and passed in 1996. It finally got a lethargic government motivated to review and finally introduce the legislation we have before us today. That took another three years. If it was not for the continued pressure by Reform to get this issue before the standing committee, who knows how long the government would have delayed.

In October 1998 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report, “Victims' Rights - A Voice, Not A Veto”. At this juncture was again the member for Surrey North who was responsible for many of the recommendations in the report and now for what we have before us today in Bill C-79.

In the fall of 1996 the former Minister of Justice promised to move on the issue of victims rights. His promise never materialized. Another broken covenant by this lethargic government. The 35th Parliament came and went and no victims rights legislation. On April 29, 1996 the former Minister of Justice admitted something should be done to acknowledge victims of crime. Talk is one thing; action is another. That justice minister is now in health making more promises.

In June 1997 when the current Minister of Justice was sworn in she too promised action. In fact she said that victims rights were one of her top three priorities. Almost two years later we see what kind of attention her promises and her priorities get.

Let us face it. Reform's fingerprints are all over Bill C-79. Too bad the government did not see fit to complete the job and include all of their commitments. Recommendations in this bill, Reform's recommendations and the committee's recommendations, will probably take at least another two or three years for this minister.

As I just said, Bill C-79 is not complete. The justice committee in its report called for changes to the Criminal Code as well as the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The latter was ignored in Bill C-79. Sadly, victims of crime will have to wait for legislative initiatives in the area of corrections. They will continue to have no right to participate in release hearings, to be advised of escapes, temporary absences or anything to do with corrections.

It is regrettable that the government can never complete the job. It is as if it has a problem with acknowledging the total picture or is just too small to give others credit for their initiatives. The only ones who lose because of the stubbornness of the government are the victims, as usual.

What do we get in Bill C-79 after four years of hard work on behalf of the Reform Party and the standing committee made up of members from all parties?

Victims will now be informed of their right to prepare a victim impact statement at the time of sentencing. This is a straightforward necessity which gives acknowledgement of the feelings of victims, a pure Reform Party initiative.

Victims will have the choice to read the victim impact statement in court, another Reform initiative. This is further acknowledgement of the victim in this criminal justice system that until now has abandoned them.

Bill C-79 will protect victims of sexual assault or violent crime up to the age of 18 from personal cross-examination by self-represented accused persons, a most logical and sensitive way to treat the victim. After all, who is accused here?

Bill C-79 will compel police officers and judges to consider the victim's safety in all bail decisions. That would seem to me to be something that should have been done a long time ago. The victim's safety should be considered in all bail decisions. Until now the victim's safety was a passing thought.

It is incredible how such obvious acknowledgements took so long for the government to consider and change. These things would not be changing today without the hard work of my colleagues in the area of victims rights.

Judges will now be required to inform the public of the possibility of section 745 applications for early parole for those who receive life sentences. This is welcome, but we all know what the ultimate position should be in the area of this scandalous and pathetic section 745.

As well, Bill C-79 will allow victims the right to present victim impact statements at section 745 hearings. Again this is a move forward, but if it were not for this nonsensical and insensitive section 745 to begin with, we would not need this in the bill.

Bill C-79 will allow victims and witnesses with a mental or physical disability the right to have a support person present while giving testimony. Going to court is intimidating at the best of times no matter what side of the law one is on. At least this gives some acknowledgement to this ordeal, particularly for the victim. It is a good move. Again, it is in this bill because of pressure from my colleagues in the Reform Party over the last few years.

Victims and witnesses will now have protection through the banning of publication of their identity where it is necessary for the proper administration of justice.

As I have said in the last few examples, there are some positive initiatives in this bill and thankfully, acknowledgement of the recommendations of the Reform Party in this four year ordeal to get the government to move. It is unfortunate that it has taken four years.

We have one concern. We plan to pursue the broadening of the definition of victim.

The minister touts the policy centre for the victims of crime as instrumental in a new strategy in acknowledging victims. She contends that all federal policies and legislation will take into consideration the views of victims of crime. We will hold her to that. And we will. If it becomes another federal sinkhole of rumination rather than action, we will not tolerate this indignity on victims.

As members are aware, a victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed upon offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected by provincial and territorial governments and used to provide programs, services and assistance to victims of crime within their jurisdiction. Bill C-79 will make some changes to the application of this surcharge. It will now be automatic to ensure it is applied consistently to all offenders. That is fair.

The new legislation will provide for mandatory minimum amounts. The new charge will be 15% of any fine imposed on the offender. If no fine is imposed, it will be $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and $100 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment. Over and above that, an increased surcharge at the discretion of the judge can now be imposed in appropriate circumstances.

We have come a long way since 1996, but as I have said, not all the way with regard to victims rights. It is regrettable the government could not bring itself to complete all elements of the all-party committee report. This is not the first time. This is one of many bills that have come from the justice committee. Another is the Young Offenders Act for 10 year olds and 11 year olds. All parties in the committee requested it. They did not get it. The committee had many meetings and hearings across Canada. We did not get what the committee asked for. This is a government run by bureaucrats, not by elected officials.

It seems a shame that we could not be here today having just once completed something in this House that a committee of all parties recommended. The Reform Party will accept the work to date and will continue to work with the government to complete the task. We will work hard to complete the task. Victims deserve closure and Bill C-79 brings them at least a few steps closer to that.

The Reform Party and specifically two diligent and determined members of my caucus can take solace today that their work culminates in Bill C-79. I say congratulations to them for the great work they have done, not only for our party but for this parliament and for all Canadians.

I want to finish up by talking about an example. I was home this past weekend and there was a story in the North Shore News about a drug dealer who in February was sentenced to three and a half years in jail. The person was described by the crown prosecutor as a controlling mind who used six others to take the heat from him while selling cocaine to an undercover North Vancouver Mountie over 10 months. All together in this case there were 13 cocaine transactions involving as much as two kilograms of cocaine costing $80,000 in this crime perpetrated by this Mr. Darmadi.

He was arrested in September 1997. He was released on bail on February 9 and a B.C. Supreme Court justice sentenced Darmadi to jail. On April 21, less than three months after his incarceration in a federal jail, Darmadi will return to North Vancouver to visit his parents on an eight hour escorted leave. What about the victims of this gentleman, the people whom he got involved in crime with him?

In a very short few months after receiving a three and a half year sentence he is home visiting with his parents. Children and young people visiting with their parents is a very nice and happy thing but not for this type of individual. It galls me when I see people like him, one of the most serious criminals in our country, getting treated in this manner and yet victims of crime do not have those same rights.

I talked earlier about some of the things that are not done in the bill. Some of them are under provincial jurisdiction, for instance plea bargaining. My hon. colleague used the case just a while ago of somebody sentenced to manslaughter instead of murder because of a plea bargain. I know that is a provincial matter, but maybe we should be showing some leadership to the provinces in the House by saying that plea bargains should only take place where victims are concerned and victims should participate. They would probably agree if they were able to sit down and go through what happened, but we ignore victims and that is unfortunate.

In the area of corrections we moved to see changes with regard to release hearings and being advised of escapees. We heard from the minister that it was maybe the solicitor general's department and he would bring in some legislation in those areas. They could have been included in the bill. It seems strange to me that after all the work we have gone through there is still nothing which insists victims of crime be informed if somebody escapes from jail, especially in cases where there has been violence or threats have been made. There is nothing in the legislation which allows that to happen.

After the committee has travelled across Canada and made recommendations in all these areas, we in parliament should not have to wait for another government bill somewhere down the line. Most of all, victims should not have to wait for somewhere down the line. When a violent offender escapes from jail his victims should be notified right away by law.

When people involved in rape, murder and physical threats are going to release hearings, the victims of those people should be notified. That is not in the bill, and that is not helping victims. What would be worse than the victim waking up and reading in the paper that some vicious murderer or rapist just got released on bail after serving a short period of time? The victim should have known about it. There is nothing in the law which says that has to happen. That is not right and that makes the bill not good enough.

We will vote for the bill because there are some positive changes, but it does not encompass all the changes the committee recommended and that is the weakness of the bill.

I assure all Canadians that Her Majesty's official opposition and all its justice critics will keep on this issue to make sure the government moves it forward as fast as it can.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate today. We are discussing the impact crime has on people who are the victims of criminals and criminal acts.

While my colleague was speaking I realized that pretty well every speaker had said something about sentencing as well as the rights of victims. Although the bill does not address the question of sentencing, which is an entirely different matter, it seems it is one of the areas in which victims often feel greatly victimized because they lose so much.

A rape victim, the family of someone who is murdered, the family of the person killed or severely injured by a drunken driver, all these people are victims. It seems as if the person who perpetrates the crime gets away with a substantially inadequate sentence. In a way that gets into the realm of the rights of victims to see that justice is done, to see that there is a penalty commensurate with the act which has taken place.

Does my colleague, the critic of the justice department for our party, have any insights into how it impacts on the rights of victims when they are victimized by criminals?

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague's question is one of the most important ones. Part of the process involved in the youth criminal justice act was getting people in the room together, the victims and the people who committed the crime, to talk about what they did.

All members who have been in politics for any period of time and have dealt with constituents will notice that whenever we get involved in issues of crime and hurt we wonder how they get closure and get on with their lives. Under the system we have right now it is not easy for people to do that. They do not feel they are part of what is going on. They do not feel they have had their say or their chance to put forth what they think should happen.

Sometimes if we involve people, as we are to do with the youth criminal justice act, it works very well. It has been shown over the ages that the more we can involve victims in the process, the better they can come to some form of closure and get on with their lives. It is very difficult, especially when someone in the family is lost, when somebody is murdered or hit by a drunken driver. How do they get over that? It is not easy, but at least the victims could be part of the process.

It is not very difficult to make that happen. All of society would be better. They could get on with their lives feeling a little better. They will never feel whole again because of what they have lost, but the fact that they can be part of the process will make them feel they did the best they could for the person who is gone instead of sitting on the outside and not being part of the process.

The government did not do things in terms of parole hearings and releases. My colleague has also raised sentencing. These are issues the committee looked at. The majority of members would agree these things should be in legislation. I talked earlier about plea bargaining. I know a number of these things are within provincial jurisdiction, but our country is not that big with a little over 30 million. The Parliament of Canada could make recommendations to the provincial governments that the victims be notified of plea bargaining, sentencing, releases and parole.

I do not think there is a member in the House who would not agree, if somebody has escaped from jail, a murder, rapist or any violent offender, that his victim should be notified. We would all agree with that. It is not here and it is unfortunate because it should be here. It shows the arrogance of a government that does not listen to its committees in the House of Commons.

I read in the paper that one of our New Democrat colleagues is leaving to go into provincial politics. I will not mention what he said about his party because that would be unkind, but I will mention what he said about parliament. I tend to agree with him that the committees in the House are not working properly and that members should be able to go to committee knowing they are doing what is best for Canada from their point of view from whatever region they live in.

I agree with that member that parliament is becoming more irrelevant because of the dictatorial means of the government of the day. There is too much power in the PMO. There is too much control of what goes on in this place.

Members should be allowed to debate freely and openly and get their points of view across. They should be able to go to a committee, which they did, and talk about doing something with the bill in the areas of sentencing, escapes and plea bargaining. All those things were discussed in committee. Members from all parties agreed. Yet there is not one mention of those items in the bill. That is unfortunate. That has to change before parliament changes for the better.

[The Speaker]

There are about four minutes left for questions and comments, but I am going to table a report. I thought we could do that and then get ready for Statements by Members.

Auditor General's Report

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Volume I, dated April 1999.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e) this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

As it is almost 2 p.m., with the agreement of members we will proceed to Statements by Members.

Cancer

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, April is the Canadian Cancer Society campaign month. During the month thousands of volunteers will be knocking on doors across the country, trying to raise the millions of dollars needed for the fight against cancer.

Through research, education, patient services and advocacy for a healthy public policy, the Canadian Cancer Society in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute of Canada is fighting to eradicate cancer. Furthermore, dollars raised by the Canadian Cancer Society are used to enhance the quality of life of people living with cancer.

As virtually every Canadian knows, cancer takes thousands of lives each year. Only through increased awareness and further research will we see continued progress in the fight against cancer.

When volunteers are at our doors this month, we should try to think about how we and our families will be able to help in this campaign. Those who have questions or need for updated information on all aspects of cancer and cancer care can call Cancer Information Services at 1-888-939-3333.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's neglect and mismanagement of the RCMP is causing it to go bankrupt.

Officers are leaving the force for better paying jobs or are going on stress leave due to the pressure of not having the resources to fight crime. Frontline police are frustrated by laws without teeth that are passed by the Liberal government.

Surrey, B.C., has the largest RCMP detachment. No wonder it is hard to fight crime with at least 10% fewer officers and 20% fewer vehicles. The RCMP knows that the Liberals will not walk the walk when they are not even talking the talk about getting tough on crime.

Despite repeated requests by the city of Surrey, the solicitor general refuses to answer questions about how $36 million per year is spent on RCMP service in Surrey. The city has been forced to threaten the solicitor general with a lawsuit to get the facts and figures. My constituents hold the Liberals responsible and the solicitor general accountable for our local RCMP service.

Canada Book Day

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Friday, April 23, is Canada Book Day, the largest single day celebration of reading and book buying in Canada. It is also a day to celebrate Canadian authors. Communities throughout our country will participate in events, including book giveaways, contests, award announcements, readings and author signings.

World Book Day was declared by UNESCO in 1995 and since then has been celebrated all over the globe. Our contribution, Canada Book Day, is organized by the Writers Trust of Canada, a national charitable organization dedicated to the advancement and nurturing of Canadian writers and writing.

The federal government supports Canada Book Day through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program.

Books are windows into worlds, real and fictional, revealing our souls, our fears and our aspirations. They challenge us to learn about ourselves and to be better for it.

On Canada Book Day, I invite my constituents and all other Canadians to read a book, share a book, or give a book to someone. Spread the written word and celebrate Canada's literary wealth.