Allan Rock

[Justice, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what a sorry spectacle it is, a party without ideas, a party without policies, a party with nothing to offer, driven in desperation to now a daily ritual of exploiting the pain of others in an effort to hang on to its few remaining points in the polls. It is a sad spectacle. It is difficult to watch and abide. It is hard to listen to.

I offer the same answer as I have offered on days in the past. The hon. member knows nothing of what he speaks. He asked for a victims bill of rights without knowing that most of the provinces have already taken steps to do exactly what he is asking for.

That party has been driven to a point where it is now exploiting crime to protect its impossible position.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1997]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a measure of how badly hurt the hon. member and his party are by the views of CAVEAT that the hon. member is making this issue.

I answered with the truth. I did not ask for the letter and to my knowledge no one in my department asked for the letter. If the situation is otherwise I will tell the member. I answered with the truth as I always do.

At the member's request we shall find out what he has in his hand. I shall make inquiries. The hon. member has as usual the truth from the Department of Justice.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, neither I nor anyone at my direction telephoned CAVEAT and asked for any such letter. I am not aware of the document to which the hon. member refers. I will look carefully into the matter. Anything the hon. member says requires that kind of examination. I will examine it and I will answer when I have all the facts.

I am telling the member right now that I did not ask for that letter and I did not ask anybody in the department to do so.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Even if we had, it would not go near the integrity the hon. member pretends to talk about.

The answer is no. It was unsolicited. It came from CAVEAT because, as the letter says on its face, it is evidence and it expresses the view of Priscilla de Villiers that the government has acted appropriately, has introduced significant change, and has shown a willingness to listen and to act.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the conditional sentence provisions that are already in law provide, first, that they are only available where the court decides the sentence should be two years less a day or lower-obviously that is the less serious case-and, second, where the court is satisfied the person does not represent a danger to the community.

There have been some decisions where conditional sentences have been granted where violence has occurred. Many of those have been appealed. Some are now before appeal courts including the case in B.C. to which the hon. member referred last week.

I say to him, as I said to his colleague, let the courts decide. The law is clear. Prison is the appropriate sentence for violent crime. I have said that time and again. We have a system of justice in which judges decide on the facts of all the cases and the appeal courts can correct any error.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is so typical of the hon. member and his colleagues to take the unhappy facts of a single case and to use them to fearmonger, to mislead people into believing that there is a problem where it does not exist.

There are, in this memorandum, particulars of a dozen recent cases in which courts have said that conditional sentences will not be given when there is violence, when society requires deterrence and denunciation.

Let the member continue. He will find that these shallow tactics of fearmongering do not succeed.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to want the

government to introduce a bill every time a court makes a decision with which he does not agree.

In connection with the B.C. case to which he has referred, as I told the hon. member, that decision is under appeal. Indeed, it is being argued in the B.C. Court of Appeal. Let us wait to see what the Court of Appeal has to say about it.

The hon. member ought not mislead the Canadian public about the effect of Bill C-41 and conditional sentences. He ought to make it clear that the courts have said time and again that conditional sentences are not appropriate for violent crimes.

I refer to the British Columbia decision in Regina v Bishop O'Connor involving allegations of sexual assault. The court said it would not be in the public interest to impose a conditional sentence, given the seriousness of the offences and the accused's position of trust and authority vis-à-vis the victims.

In Ontario there is the case of Regina v BLG. The initials are used because the names cannot be released. The Ontario Court of Justice, general division, was faced with an uncle who had committed indecent assault against two nieces. The court refused a conditional sentence, saying general deterrence and denunciation were more important.

Mr. Justice Kurisco, in Regina v MacNeil, again a case of indecent-

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has just said, what she proposes goes beyond the criminal law. Indeed, it goes directly into some areas of provincial jurisdiction, including the administration of justice.

As soon as a charge is laid under the Criminal Code, it is the province that carries the prosecution, the province that must provide for grief counselling and other services to victims.

Let me mention one other thing and it is this. The hon. member also referred to what the government does or can do for victims.

Last week I brought to the attention of the House the position of a nationally recognized organization of victims called CAVEAT. Through its president, Priscilla de Villiers, CAVEAT recognized that the government has made significant changes in the last three and a half years and that the government is prepared to listen and to act.

When the Canadian public comes to judge our performance they will not listen to the hon. member, they will listen to CAVEAT. CAVEAT has told the truth.

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago when this issue was debated in the House and before I requested the justice committee to look at the whole issue and have hearings, if necessary, I spoke in the House. I brought to the attention of hon. members the fact that in 1988, which is now nine years ago, the federal and provincial attorneys general adopted a statement of the entitlements of victims in the criminal justice system. That included a commitment by both levels of government to see to it that victims were given due notice of when a case was being called, that they were informed of their right to participate as provided by law.

I read the statement of principles to the House. That statement of principles has guided federal and provincial governments since 1988, virtually the same statement of principles that the Reform Party wants us to adopt as a so-called bill of rights.

Therefore, the reality is that for the last nine years, both federally in creating the criminal law and provincially in the administration of justice, those principles in favour of victims have been in place.

I urge the members of the Reform Party to look at that statement and realize they are already in place.