Val Meredith

[Petitions, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition bearing 371 signatures, mainly from Canadians of Sri Lankan origin.

The petitioners call on Parliament to prohibit the raising of funds within Canada for supporting the war against the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, already declared a terrorist organization; to ensure adequate surveillance and prosecution of members of the LTTE front organization and other supporters in Canada who are engaged in fund raising, extortion, passport racketeering, smuggling of narcotics and all other forms of criminal activity.

Also, to investigate LTTE front organizations and support groups in order to bar them from operating in Canada; to fully live up to the international legal obligations imposed on states in combating international terrorism; to fully co-operate with the legally elected government of Sri Lanka, which maintains the most cordial relations with Canada, in eradicating the Tamil Tigers terrorist network in Canada.

I am pleased on their behalf to present this petition to Parliament in the hope Parliament will do something to assist them.

[Justice, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the department does not know where this individual is right now.

On December 1, 1995 I asked the previous minister of immigration about the recently signed agreement with Vietnam that would allow for the return of criminal refugees and immigrants from that country. At that time, the former minister boasted that the agreement would permit the removal of: "individuals who should not have been here in the first place. And that is being done".

If the agreement is as great as the previous minister claimed it to be, why is Lam the subject of a Canada-wide warrant and not back in Vietnam?

[Justice, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in 1990 when Bao Ngoc Lam, a refugee claimant and five buddies, were robbing a night club in Toronto, Lam put his handgun to the head of detective Peter Leung and threatened to kill him.

After serving a two-year sentence, Lam was held in custody by immigration. It was trying to deport him back to Vietnam but Vietnam refused to take him. After declaring that it took too long to deport Lam, an immigration adjudicator released him. Soon after being released, Lam disappeared and is now the subject of a Canada-wide warrant.

How can the minister ensure Canadians that her department puts public safety first when people like Lam are released?

[National Security, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Solicitor General of Canada back to the House. Our prayers have been and continue to be with him.

I am sure the minister knows better than the rest of us that the demands of government and the House do not wait for any one individual.

Today we have the annual national security address. As is tradition, the minister has reminded us of some recent terrorist activity: last year's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, poison gas attacks on the Tokyo subways, the recent assassination of the Prime Minister of Israel and the resumption of IRA bombings in London. Terrorism remains a worldwide problem.

In addition, the media is usually full of tragedies arising from conflicts around the world. Many of these conflicts from faraway lands have implications here in Canada. Be it the Middle East, Bosnia, Somalia, Sri Lanka or Punjab, conflicts in these diverse locations impact on the emigre communities in Canada. While the overwhelming majority of immigrants or refugees from these areas are intent on starting new lives in Canada, a small majority involve themselves in activities supporting terrorist groups.

As the minister stated in his address, Canada has joined the other G-7 nations to deal with terrorism. A document known as the Ottawa declaration calls on all states to renounce terrorism and deny financial support, including the use of territory, to terrorist organizations. While the government has congratulated itself on its efforts in this regard, its actual commitment has been somewhat underwhelming.

The minister boasts of the government's efforts to fight terrorism and to pursue the objectives of the Ottawa declaration. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House back to last year around this time.

On May 4, 1995 I asked the Minister of National Revenue about the Sikh militant group, the Babbar Khalsa, having charitable tax status. The minister's response was: "I would be grateful if the hon. member would provide that information so that investigations can be carried out rather than simply making allegations of the type she has made today".

I attempted to follow up this issue on June 5, 1995. On that date I provided the Minister of National Revenue with photographs of the founder of the Babbar Khalsa, surrounded by weapons, and a

statement in which Talwinder Singh Parmar declared that if anyone wanted to commit suicide he should board an Air India plane.

The minister's response was a lame attempt at humour, stating that he felt it was contradictory for the Reform Party to be against terrorism at the same time that it was opposed to Bill C-68. That was the government's response to fundraising for terrorist groups a year ago.

Fortunately things have changed. The Prime Minister went to a conference in Cairo and suddenly the government is concerned about fundraising for terrorist groups. As well, we have a new Minister of National Revenue. There are grand pronouncements about the tough action the government will take to stop the support of terrorism in Canada.

Finally, on April 13, 1996 the government buried a small little notice in the Canada Gazette. The item was that Revenue Canada has withdrawn the charitable status of the Babbar Khalsa. A year ago the government thought it was a joke. Now it realizes that the Reform Party's concerns were valid right from the beginning.

I am sure the minister is aware that there are a number of other groups involved in this kind of activity. Last week we heard that the RCMP had arrested one of its former translators on charges of attempting to obstruct justice and perjury. According to a police affidavit this individual was hired by the RCMP to translate wiretaps in a major investigation into a Tamil-speaking Sri Lankan forgery and alien smuggling group.

Unfortunately for the RCMP, neither the translator nor the Mounties initial background check mentioned anything about his membership in the terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers.

The police stated: "It is our belief that he tried to infiltrate the RCMP while a member of a terrorist organization". The Mounties are concerned that the translator may have been working on sensitive documents relating to his homeland and they are now going through a damage control exercise.

Who would have thought that a translator in one of the solicitor general's agencies was actually working against the interest of his employer? It is important for the government to live up to its commitment to stop individuals living in Canada from supporting terrorists overseas.

The government cannot just talk about taking a stand against these activities, it must act and it must be seen to be acting. Burying announcements in the Canada Gazette is not sufficient. Let those involved know that their activities are unacceptable, make them illegal and prosecute them.

The minister says in his statement that he cannot canvas all the activities of CSIS and the RCMP in support of national security and I do not imagine that he would have.

In the May 12 edition of the Vancouver Province we learn that CSIS officers in British Columbia have been questioning Tamil leaders to determine if they are raising money to support guerrilla warfare in Sri Lanka. The response of the president of the Eelam Tamil Community Association of B.C. was that while he owes his allegiance to the Tamil Tigers, his group raises money only for humanitarian uses.

A number of terrorist organizations do have a faction that is involved in humanitarian endeavours, but how much money goes to humanitarian efforts and how much money goes to terrorist activities is impossible to measure.

If the government is serious about the Ottawa declaration, and if it is serious about the summit of peacemakers that took place in Cairo in March, it must make clear to everyone that support for terrorism will not be tolerated no matter what disguise it tries to take. Any organization that targets innocent civilians is a terrorist group and must be dealt with as such. The government may have to offend some individuals and groups to make that message loud and clear.

[Immigration And Refugee Board, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of my colleague's private member's motion to get rid of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I support him 100 per cent.

I have heard from former members as well as those who are presently sitting on the IRB. They are very concerned about the attitude, the prevailing culture as they call it, within the Immigration and Refugee Board. There are individuals who feel that the prevailing attitude or culture of the board is very biased, one sided and certainly is not balanced. They are very concerned because they see this attitude as being one of supporting the advocacy groups and the refugees over and above any consideration for Canada and for the safety of Canadian society. This concerns me.

The board is a quasi-judicial body which operates at arm's length from the government. There does not seem to be any accountability. I appreciate that somebody has to be there to be concerned about the refugee and immigration applicants who appear before the board, however I feel there are other options. There are other options and opportunities within the Canadian system for their concerns to be addressed. My colleague has given his concept of what he thinks the alternatives can be.

I would suggest that having a government department with individuals who have the knowledge and training to deal with this

is probably the preferable way of dealing with it because they are accountable. If it can be shown they are not doing their job or that there is bias or a lack of consideration for any of the different parties, they can be held accountable and they can be removed from their job.

The members of the IRB are not treated in the same way. They are removed from any accountability. When they make decisions that are not in Canada's best interests, nothing really can be done. Making people accountable for their decisions is a very important consideration.

Another reason departmental representatives are in a better position or should be allowed that jurisdiction is that decisions would be done in a timely manner. It is not fair for any applicant to have to wait four or five years to know whether or not they are going to be allowed to stay in their country of choice. It is not fair to the Canadian public nor to the applicants themselves to be held in the situation of not knowing where they belong.

I have talked to many applicants who have gone through a very long and drawn out process to try to get some kind of determination. It is very difficult for them when they have established roots in a new home in Canada to be told four or five years later that they cannot stay.

I am concerned with what is happening to the Immigration and Refugee Board in that its decisions are also bringing disrepute to Canada's whole immigration system. I can cite a number of cases of where its decisions have been contrary to public opinion and the opinion of immigration officers. There are decisions where the immigration officers have appealed the IRB decision because they felt so strongly about it. A number of them have happened within the last year or two.

One that strikes me as being totally uncalled for is a decision for Jhatoo to remain in our country. Jhatoo has a fairly lengthy criminal history and ended up once again committing a serious crime. He beat to death with a baseball bat a mother of six children. He did it for money. The IRB determined that he could be rehabilitated even though he had a long criminal history and he had murdered a mother of six children. He was put out on parole. The decision was made that while he was on parole he could remain in Canada on the condition that he not associate with other criminals. When the IRB decision came down his parole had already been revoked and he was in jail associating with criminals. This did not seem to concern the IRB.

There is another case of an applicant who had been ordered deported, whose deportation order had been stayed by the IRB and then had been appealed and overturned. Although that individual had a charge of manslaughter, a charge for a sexual offence against a 13 year old, and charges of aggravated assault, he was allowed to stay in Canada. As a result there is one woman who is dead and a 13 year old girl who was shot and badly wounded before he committed suicide. There is a price to pay for decisions such as these.

When somebody thinks that the department officials have not given a good decision or that their deportation order is unjustified, there are the courts of the land to deal with those cases. There is nothing that denies them the ability to appear before the courts in those cases.

We have made it so easy for individuals to stretch the process, to stretch the courtesy and the kindness of our country to the point where our acceptance rate is nigh on 75 per cent. Although as a country we are compassionate and we want to open our doors, it is a question of making sure that those most in need, the genuine refugees who are in camps and do not have the means to relocate in another country, are the people we look after, not those individuals who have the financial resources to reach the North American continent and to make their claim from here.

Some comments have been brought to my attention from the Rwandan community here in Canada, the Tamil community here in Canada, the Hong Kong community here in Canada, and the Sikh community here in Canada. They are concerned about the decisions which are being made by the IRB. They are concerned about the representation in the IRB hearings which they see as very one sided and very biased. They ask: "How is it possible that this is happening? We are the victims. We are being victimized in Canada by the people the IRB is allowing to come in. Why is somebody not protecting us in Canada from that which we left in our home countries?" I cannot answer them because I do not know why we are allowing that to happen.

The situation we find ourselves in was brought to my attention by somebody within the community. This person is concerned that in 1994 there were 68 Chileans who made claims to the board in Montreal. In February 1995 Canada removed the visitor's visa regulation for Chileans. In 1995 Montreal had 1,483 applicants for refugee status. That is a jump from 68 claimants to 1,483 claimants in one year.

One has to ask why this happens. Is it for legitimate reasons or is it because Canada has a reputation for having such a weak, soft system that it makes it easy for people to take advantage of us? In the interests of Canadians, in the interests of the integrity of our immigration system it is very important that Canada start looking at organizations and boards like the IRB to determine whether they have been successful in maintaining the status and the stature of Canada in the international community. If they have not, then this country should be looking for other alternatives. I would suggest that now is not soon enough.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleagues across the floor speaking in support of this legislation. It amuses me, to say the least.

We find these reforms supposedly made to the unemployment insurance act are really cosmetic changes that in essence centralize rather than decentralize.

This whole reform to the unemployment insurance program will not help create any jobs. It will probably be instrumental in bringing job loss to the part time workforce.

I would like to speak to the government's promise in the budget speech that it would not raise any taxes. I find that quite funny because here we have it adding a 7 per cent payroll tax through a change in the unemployment insurance program. This 7 per cent payroll tax will affect part time workers, the young people who are trying to enter the workforce in part time employment while they are going to school, many of whom are trying to help finance their education.

This will be a great loss to them. It will also be a loss to part time workers who happen to be mothers trying to get some work experience to get back into the workforce when their children are old enough to go to school.

For these young people and moms who work part time this change in the unemployment insurance act will reduce the number of jobs available to them. It will add a tax burden to the employers as well as to these part time workers. I find it a bit hypocritical that the government said in the budget it would not bring in any new taxes but then brings them in under program changes.

This 7 per cent payroll tax is likely to affect about 2.23 million jobs. That is not a small number. It is a substantial number of first time jobs and part time jobs which will be affected by the legislation. Our party is very concerned about that.

Our party is also very concerned about the lack of changes to maternity benefits. Presently there are two benefits, a maternity benefit for natural parents and a parental benefit for both natural and adoptive parents. Under the present system a natural parent may be eligible for both benefits up to 30 weeks, whereas an adoptive parent is eligible only for a minimum of 15 weeks.

The Reform amendments to the legislation repeal both of these benefits and introduce one new child care benefit for which all

parents, natural or adoptive, may apply. This benefit is for a duration of a maximum of 15 weeks.

We have heard adoptive parents tell us they feel very discriminated against under the present legislation because they are eligible for only 15 weeks where natural parents are eligible for 30 weeks. We in the Reform Party believe there should not be any discrimination in government legislation. Therefore we would like to see this discrimination removed.

The Reform child care benefit would eliminate any inequities or discrimination between these different types of parents. It would avoid making any value judgments as to whether natural or adoptive parents are more deserving of certain types of leave, longer leave, et cetera. Instead they would all be eligible for the same period of benefits, 15 weeks.

These changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are positive moves and something which should be supported by government members.

We also find great difficulty in a promise by the government during the referendum debate of last fall when it promised it would transfer manpower training to the province. Under this legislation it is reneging on that promise and keeping control of manpower training at the federal level. The government has failed to meet this promise and that changes should be made to bring the dollars for manpower training under the jurisdiction and control of the provinces.

The Reform Party believes that although there are changes which need to be made to the unemployment insurance programs, the government has fallen far short of meeting some of the great needs the country faces. We do not feel its changes have done anything but add more dollars to the coffers for the federal government to spend recklessly.

It is undermining job creation. It is undermining young people in their attempts to enter the workforce. By not addressing discrimination of parental benefits and maternity in the legislation it is certainly continuing the discriminatory practice.

I urge government members to consider the amendments placed before the House by the Reform Party and give them due consideration to improve the legislation they have put before the House.

[Immigration Consultants, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this motion.

I sat on the immigration committee which dealt with immigration consultants. It was interesting to hear the testimony from various witnesses. We heard from people who used the services, who saw the need to have immigration consultants and realized the level of commitment that many immigration consultants have. We also heard from witnesses who reported instances showing that there was abuse, that there were consultants who perhaps did not have the necessary skills, that there were consultants who were misrepresenting Canadian law and were putting people's lives in jeopardy by misrepresenting the situation as they found it. We heard of problems which occurred overseas and problems which occurred here in Canada.

One of the things the committee decided was that there was a need for some way to regulate, license and control these consultants to make them accountable. The committee also felt the department of immigration could do some things. For example, it could provide information in people's own languages. It could explain what Canadian law was, what immigration regulations

were all about, what was required. It could also explain that people did not need to hire a consultant.

In some countries government officials are not considered to be trustworthy and there is a hesitancy by individuals to have government representatives deal with their applications. Therefore, there is a need for immigration consultants. The committee recognized that and recommended that there be some level of licensing and some level of control.

This motion takes it to the next stage by saying that all immigration consultants should be licensed and controlled and that there is a need to enter into negotiations with provinces and the federal government to come up with some means of regulating and licensing these individuals.

In my previous life I was a realtor. I know from experience that provincial boards can be established through provincial legislation. These boards can license and monitor people who provide services to the community. These boards can be self-regulating and self-financing. The membership fees can cover the costs of these organizations. Therefore I do not feel that this motion is being unrealistic.

Medical doctors through their colleges have that kind of control. Lawyers through bar associations have that kind of control. Realtors have that kind of control. There is no reason that immigration consultants could not have the same kind of committee or board structure at the provincial level which would allow this kind of management.

People have asked: Why do we need to have these controls? Why can it not be buyer beware? Why not let the immigrants make the decision as to whom they want to hire? It is fine to put the onus on the consumer to pick the best choice. There is no question about that.

However, we need to offer some protection to people who may have a language problem or who may have a fear of persons in authority. That protection could be offered through a regulatory body at a provincial level which would be self-disciplined, self-regulated and self-financed. I will explain what this kind of board could do.

Not only could the board license individuals, but there could be some kind of testing of the individual's competence to provide the services. It could offer a vehicle for people who complain about the services they acquire from consultants. It could be a place an individual could go if they felt they were charged too much for a service.

The board could establish a proper fee or a fee which would be reasonable for certain kinds of procedures. The board could provide disciplinary measures for those individuals who overstep the guidelines, who overstep the laws of the land and who misrepresent the Canadian immigration department. This organization could provide the necessary disciplinary action to control people who hold themselves out as immigration consultants.

The board could provide some kind of financial responsibility. It could collect fees from people who want to be immigration consultants. It could distribute educational material. It could distribute changes in legislation to all those who provide the service. In other words, it could act as an administrative body to ensure that people who are acting in that capacity are all operating at the same level, or at least at an acceptable level to the organization.

The motion is not something which is impossible to reach or impossible to establish. I believe there would be a reluctance on the part of the provinces to get involved in this kind of thing. Unfortunately the licensing of businesses does come under provincial jurisdiction. However, if the provinces could understand that they would not be required financially to establish these boards or regulatory bodies they might be more willing to consider this as an option.

The committee found that the federal government could only do this on its own in a limited way. The federal government is not in a position to establish this kind of regulatory body. It can deal only with those tribunals over which it has control.

I believe the motion is sound and reasonable. I have no problem in supporting the hon. member in his effort to deal with this very serious problem in Canada.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code. This bill will make it an indictable offence under the Criminal Code to kill, capture or sell wildlife or wildlife parts if the act is carried out without a licence, permit or an exemption order.

The bill does not replace provincial wildlife laws, but rather it complements them in a similar manner that the Criminal Code also deals with serious driving offences.

It provides for a maximum sentence of two years incarceration for a first offence and a maximum of three years for subsequent offences. If the animal in question is a threatened or endangered species, the maximum sentences are increased to a maximum of four years for a first offence, and eight years for a subsequent offence.

The bill also calls for this section of the Criminal Code to be included as an enterprise crime, which means that it would be subject to the proceeds of crime legislation.

This bill is a necessary piece of legislation to protect one of Canada's greatest treasures, its wildlife.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is an organization in our government, the correctional investigator, which listens to the complaints of convicted individuals in the penitentiaries. It hears complaints about the kind of food they get, the kind of cells they are in, whether they get to smoke.

I would suggest that is a very good start. Take the resources for that agency and redefine it to provide services for victims. I do not feel that people who have been charged, convicted and sentenced to incarceration have any right to criticize or complain about the kind of food or the kind of health care they get. They get 24-hour health services which no other Canadian in the country gets, yet some of them complain about it. They complain about the way they are shuttled from cell to cell or where they are moved.

The resources that go into that agency, I believe it is a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, would provide a very good start to funding the cause of victims rights.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I begin speaking on the supply motion by congratulating my colleague from Fraser Valley West for introducing the victim's bill of rights. It is certainly a pleasure to see something concrete happening in the House regarding victims' rights.

Not all victims are the result of murder. Many victims we find in Canadian society are people who have found themselves victimized through assault, attacks or other offences. Sometimes these victims go unnoticed and unheard.

What we are concerned about with this victims' bill of rights is that there is a process and a procedure to make sure people who find themselves victimized by offenders have some recourse, some vehicle for having their story heard and their concerns addressed.

Not that I have ever wanted to but simply because of the position I found myself in I have ended up speaking to over 20 parents of murdered children. Their stories vary from occasion and from location. For the most part what I hear from the parents of children who have been murdered is they feel when they enter the court system they are being revictimized. I also hear that from parents or from assault victims who find themselves getting entangled in a misunderstanding between the federal jurisdiction over creating the law and the provincial jurisdiction over administering the law.

Caught in this conflict, these victims really feel they are being victimized for a second or third time when they enter the court process.

Two aspects of this victim's bill of rights try to deal with a couple of problems that arise. One is section 4, which asks that victims be informed in a timely fashion of the details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the defence.

That is a fair request. Anybody who has been victimized whether from a sexual assault, assault or in the worst cases a murder has a right to be part of the process. They have a right to know when there is an intention to downgrade a charge.

A good number of the people who find themselves victimized go to court anticipating or expecting a first degree murder conviction for the criminal if that is what the criminal is charged with. They come away feeling very distraught when that has been downgraded either to second degree or to manslaughter.

When people go to court, having been victimized from a sexual assault, and find out that charge can be downgraded through a plea bargain to make sure the offender does get convicted, they may downgrade the seriousness of the assault.

Oftentimes because the victims or the families of the victims do not understand the process they feel cheated. If they were brought into the process, if they were brought into the discussions on why plea bargaining was being considered, why the need to look at downgrading the charge to get a conviction, perhaps they would feel less victimized the second or third time.

Another concern of mine is that victims should be looked after, that there should be some vehicle in our system that when there are people who are victimized through no fault of their own, there is some compensation or some accounting that they, too, need to be cared for.

The case that comes to mind is the case of a young 14-year old girl who was kidnapped out of a schoolyard after school by an older man and taken in his truck. The intent was considered when she escaped partially dressed. The offender's truck got stuck in the mud. While he was trying to deal with getting his truck unstuck she was able to get out of the vehicle and escape partially dressed. His intentions, therefore, were quite clear.

The parents of that child realized that in order to heal completely this child needed to have counselling. They went to various agencies to see what kind of counselling she could receive. They were told they had to make an application to victim's aid and that perhaps the money for the counselling would be available in three to four months.

Those parents realized that the counselling and healing had to start immediately. This 14-year old girl could not wait three or four months before dealing with what had happened to her. However, they were not a family of wealth and it took everything they had to find the financial resources to make sure that their daughter did not suffer long term consequences from this event.

We then look at the offenders who have all of the counselling and treatment provided for them, and the victims are left trying to deal with their problems on their own. That concerns me.

Another part of this victims' bill of rights which has to be looked at is the issue of the crown and the police notifying the victims why charges were not laid if that is the decision of the crown or the police.

One case more than any other brings that to my mind. Clifford Olson on New Year's Day in 1981 picked up a 16-year old girl, Kim Werbecky, and raped her repeatedly over a 12-hour period. She eventually escaped and reported the crime to the police, who arrested and charged Clifford Olson. However, the crown did not proceed with charges because she was a prostitute. It felt she would be viewed as a liar and a tramp and was not to be believed. Thus Olson was released.

At the time of his release Olson had already murdered one child and he would go on to murder another 10 children. It was not until two years ago that Kim Werbecky finally found out why charges did not proceed. She never had a chance to state her position or give her side of the story.

It is extremely important that the crown and the police bring victims into the discussions. I know one individual living in my community who is very good about dealing with not only the victims but the victim's family, of talking to them of what the possibilities are, of where this case might go, of what would be expected of them and of the pain, suffering and stress they would feel.

He takes it upon himself to deal with the realities of victims having to go through the legal system. He helps to reduce the trauma for these victims by including them in discussions before the trial and before the court case is heard. He includes them in plea bargaining, what it is all about and where it will take them.

It is unfortunate that is left to the discretion of the crown. Not all crowns are as good as this individual at bringing the victims into the process. It should not be left to the individual. It should be the rule and not the exception. Unfortunately we find that it is the exception. Most crowns are busy, have large caseloads and literally cannot be bothered to look at the whole aspect of victims when they are going through the court system.

I do not think most Canadians realize the crown is there to assume the responsibility of the victim. Society does not believe it is only the victim who has been victimized but society as a whole. Therefore the crown, on behalf of the individual, appears before the courts to get some justice and restitution.

I do not think most Canadians realize the crown is really there on their behalf. They need to be brought more into the system with the crown so they appreciate and understand that they are working together on this, that the crown is actually working on their behalf.

Victims and their families must have a statutory right to be informed about what is happening. It should not be left to the discretion of the crown or to the discretion of the attorney general. Ministers of justice and attorneys general change often. They are not standard established positions. The individuals change with the will of the people and sometimes reflect how the Criminal Code is applied.

It is very important that victims rights be written into statute so changes in government do not affect how they are dealt with.

I congratulate my colleague for his efforts on behalf of the victims in society.