Allan Rock

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we had occasion to discuss that at length last week in the House. As I said on that occasion in answer to colleagues of the hon. member, the government has always preferred to act rather than to talk.

The hon. member and her friends like to talk about a victims bill of rights, but we prefer to enact legislation to bring those rights to life. Whether it is the right to restitution, which is in Bill C-41 in terms of sentencing to make sure that victims of crime get restitution for their loss, or whether it is the right to take part at the sentencing part of a hearing, as we did for victims of young offenders in the Young Offenders Act changes, the government has acted throughout to ensure that victims have a role to play and their loss and their interests are respected by the criminal justice system.

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

No, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member looks at the cases he referred to last November, he should look at the appeal court decisions from those results. If the hon. member is suggesting that any time a judge somewhere in Canada makes a sentencing decision that he does not agree with we should pass another law, then he does not understand the criminal justice system.

Judges are to apply the criminal law which includes penalties up to life in prison for serious violence, including sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. The tools are there. They are spelled out in the code for the courts to apply.

I urge the hon. member to reconsider what the purpose and nature of the criminal justice system is.

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the conditional sentence provision provides on its face that the court must take into account the safety of the community, the danger to the community, before deciding whether a conditional sentence is appropriate.

By virtue of the amendment that all parties agreed to this past Monday we will add words that require the judge before considering a conditional sentence to take into account the usual factors, including deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community.

The Criminal Code has over 800 sections. Many provide expressly for terms as long as life imprisonment for those who commit crimes of serious violence, including sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. The tools are there. This government does not sit in the courtrooms to decide cases or pass sentences. It provides the law. The law provides well to deal with violent crime.

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are already penalties in the criminal law to provide for lengthy imprisonment, if necessary life imprisonment, for those who commit serious violent crimes.

Monday of last week I proposed and all parties agreed, including my hon. friend, an amendment to the conditional sentence provision that will require the courts to look at sentencing factors in general, including denunciation, when deciding whether conditional sentences are appropriate.

In terms of the hon. member's reference to graves, the party opposite makes it very difficult to engage in rational debate. If its members have succeeded in anything this week it has been to fortify their position as a party of the narrow edge, a party of the extreme, a party that prefers slogans over substance, a party that prefers rhetoric over results. They have made themselves the spectacle this week.

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points.

First, no one would suggest for a moment that anyone, whether it is this government, CAVEAT, I or any other responsible person, favours anything but prison for those who commit serious violent crimes.

My reference to the CAVEAT letter was and is in relation to its commentary on the performance of this government in relation to victims and their rights under the law.

On the subject of conditional sentences, the Criminal Code already contains serious penalties, including life in prison, for those who commit serious violent crimes such as sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and the like. It is already in the criminal law.

If a court somewhere makes a decision about a sentence in a specific case, if the prosecutor believes that sentence is inappropriate an appeal can be brought and argued and that result may well be changed. It depends on the judgment of the court.

The reference this week has been to a specific case in British Columbia which is before the court of appeal. I ask the hon. member to let the court do its job. The penalties are already in the code. If the penalty in this case was inappropriate the appeal court has all the power to correct that result.

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the response spoke for itself.

I was asked yesterday about the position of the government in relation to victims. The allegation has been made all week by the hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party that the government either does not understand or has not acted in the interests of victims in the criminal justice system.

My purpose in referring to the letter from Priscilla de Villiers, the president of CAVEAT, was to demonstrate that one of the most respected spokespersons for victim rights, who has suffered her own personal tragedy and has turned from that tragedy to make something constructive come out of all that, has looked at the record of the government and has said we have made significant change, that we have demonstrated a willingness to listen and a willingness to act.

I said yesterday, as I say today, that when the people of Canada come to make their choice between the Reform Party and the Liberal government as to who to believe on the issue of victim rights, I believe they will turn to respected and credible third parties such as CAVEAT.

The people of this country will have no difficulty deciding that this is a government which has acted and the Reform Party is absolutely wrong.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[Justice, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code contains over 800 sections. It is made very clear in the Criminal Code that the penalty for serious violent crime is imprisonment. The penalty for sexual assault is already crystal clear in the Criminal Code.

The case to which the hon. member refers is being argued in the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. It is not to be decided here in the House; it is to be decided in the courts.

The principles of sentencing are already set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. They are there to be interpreted and applied by the courts. That is the way the system of justice works in this country and this government has taken steps to ensure that system is all the stronger.

[Justice, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, that case is before the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and I am not going to comment on it. It is for the court of appeal to deal with the case and the issues it presents.

I also caution the hon. member about taking some facts from a case and not all the facts in presenting the issue to the House or publicly.

Finally, in relation to conditional sentencing, I and the government believe that anyone who commits serious violent crime should be imprisoned. I also believe that the amendment we made in common on Monday, to make clear that in the case of conditional sentences the courts must look at the factors, including societal protection, denunciation and deterrence, will improve the provisions and give the courts clear direction on the intention of Parliament.