Allan Rock

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as a parent of young children, I recognize the concern that any parent feels about such an offender or such offences.

It is because I am a parent of young children that I drew particular satisfaction with the initiative of which I was a part when the government and the caucus introduced Bill C-55 to deal with exactly the kind of case that the hon. member has described.

The system has to change and it has to change in the way that we proposed in the high risk offender legislation. That bill, as the hon. member knows, will empower the sentencing court at the time sentence is passed to require that after the person is released from prison, unless they are jailed indefinitely, they can be supervised closely for a period up to 10 years to make sure that our children are safe from them. That is in addition to the provisions already in the code allowing the criminal court at the request of provincial AGs to ask that someone be locked up for the rest of their lives without possibility of release.

I believe Bill C-55 is going to make my choice-

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member shows breathtaking presumptuousness in pretending that he speaks on behalf of victims, in pretending that he and his colleagues alone understand the needs of victims. Of course they do not.

If we need any evidence of that proposition, think back to that day in 1995 when victims appeared in a room in this building. They were people who had lost mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers to tragic violent crime, people who had been shot to death. There were victims who came here in tears to ask

these hon. members to vote in favour of Bill C-68 to control firearms more effectively. And what did they do? They turned a deaf ear to those victims. They turned their backs to those victims. Almost all of them voted against the very bill those victims wanted.

The example given by the hon. member today demonstrates his inability to grasp this issue. Plea bargains by prosecuting crown attorneys are in the jurisdiction of the provinces. I have taken up with the provinces my concern that they approve those systems. If the hon. member would have regard for what we are doing he would know we have the interests of victims very much at heart.

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the rules and the regulations of the prison system as I understand them make it possible for anybody who does not wish to receive mail from a particular prisoner to let that be known and the prison will see to it that person does not send mail to that person.

I spoke earlier about inflammatory language and emotive rhetoric. I think we can say now we have seen one of the prime examples from this hon. member who takes a discussion of the principles of criminal law to such extremes.

We should focus on the real issues, making streets safe, making communities safe, making the laws stronger and having a justice system that is sensitive to the interests of victims. That is exactly what our priority has been these last three and a half years, whether with changes to the criminal law in relation to the drunkenness defence which created an awful lot of victims or changes to the access by defence counsel to confidential records.

Our strategy, as opposed to the strategy of those with the rhetoric across the aisle, is to do things to make sure we have fewer victims in this country. That is the strategy of this government.

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if one takes the trouble to cut through the inflammatory rhetoric and the emotive language of the Reform Party and look at what those members are really saying, the problem is it does not make any sense. They pretend that they are the only spokespersons for victims in this country, which is nonsense. This government has acted, not just spoken.

They do not really understand the issue. Even the purported victims bill of rights, which has gone to committee, totally ignores the distinction between federal and provincial responsibilities.

I listened to a CBC radio program this morning, a very good one here in Ottawa. Family members of a murder victim were on. They were asked if there was one thing they could have had in the justice system that would have made their plight easier. They answered grief counselling and assistance through the court process. That of course is a provincial responsibility.

That is why I went to the table with the provincial attorneys general and asked them to look with me at the Criminal Code. That is the kind of effective action that will make a difference, not this kind of talk.

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it was in June of 1994, just a few months after the last election, that this government introduced Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act to, among other things, improve the situation for victims, to provide for the first time that victims could provide impact statements in youth court.

That was just a few months after the last election. The Reform Party voted against those measures.

It was just a few months later, in 1994, that we tabled Bill C-41 to provide for the rights of victims and restitution, to provide increased sentences for those who harm them. The Reform Party voted against it.

In relation to gun control on behalf of victims in this country, victims who came to Parliament and asked that we act, this government had the courage of its convictions and it acted. The Reform Party voted against it.

I think the victims of this country would far rather have action than talk.

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is one reason why the justice committee is devoting time today, tomorrow and later this week to the proposed victims bill of rights. That is because I asked it to. The last time the matter was debated in the House of Commons I undertook to direct the matter to the justice committee so it could look at the proposals in detail. I wrote to the committee and it has kindly taken up my request and is looking at the matter.

There is always more to do to make the justice system better and that includes the rights of victims. I do not think that the Reform Party or anyone else should overlook what has been achieved by this government on behalf of victims. Over the last three and a half years we have introduced more meaningful changes to the Criminal Code for the benefit of victims than any government in memory.

The Reform Party ought not to think that it has any monopoly on concern. As a caucus and as a government we have shown that we care deeply about victims and their role in the criminal justice system. We have acted.

[Victims Of Crime, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, along with everything else the hon. member must struggle with, his abject inability to make distinctions between different cases is also a terrible burden. It is evident in his questions in the House.

The challenge to Bill C-68, the gun control bill, is before the court. There has been no judgment yet because the argument has not taken place. I would venture to say that the hon. member can count on that bill being constitutional and valid. Those are the submissions we will be making before that hon. court.

In terms of victims, I would like the hon. member to consider the position I put to him last week. If he thinks that Bill C-45 can be improved in any way to assure the right of the victim to participate in section 745 hearings, let the hon. member come forward and work with us to achieve that result. Spare us the tendentious partisan rhetoric in the House of Commons and work with us to make it better.

[Victims Of Crime, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can certainly deny is that the hon. member speaks on behalf of victims in this country. He does not. When victims look at the record of this government they find in a dozen pieces of legislation grounds upon which to say that we have improved the law for the benefit of victims.

In terms of section 745, as I have already told my friend's colleague, in Bill C-41 we provided for the victims to have a role at the hearings. After that the Supreme Court of Canada came down with a judgment that made it clear under the common law that it could do so.

If my hon. friend thinks there is any part of Bill C-45 that should be changed to make that any clearer, and I have already told him in writing that I am happy to work with him to that effect, then let the hon. member, instead of standing in the House and carrying on with theatrics and rhetoric, work with us to make changes in the law to improve it for the objective of victims.

[Rights Of Victims, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, not only am I able to say that we are going to do it, I am able to say that we have done it. Time and again when we have brought forward legislation that does it, and the Reform Party for one reason or another votes against it.

As I was saying before the hon.member put further words in edgewise, I have already said to him and to his colleagues that I am happy to participate with them in making appropriate amendments to Bill C-45 if they believe that any such amendment will make it even more crystal clear that victims should have a role at hearings under section 745. Indeed, I wrote last week to the hon. member's colleague making that position clear.

Let us work together. If the hon. member feels that the matter can be made clearer, I am delighted to work with him and with the other parties in the House to achieve that objective.

Let it never be forgotten that time and again the party in the House that stood up for victims of crime, not with rhetoric, not with florid faces-

[Rights Of Victims, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to use rhetoric when talking about a victims' bill of rights. It is quite another thing to produce actual legislation that makes a difference in the lives of victims. That is exactly what the government has done.

There are a dozen examples of concrete ways in which the government has acted to help victims. I refer as an example to Bill C-46, the very intent of which is to assure confidentiality for the private records of victims in cases involving charges of sexual assault.

Let me treat the precise subject the hon. member has raised, which is the role of victims in hearings under section 745. The government believes, and I believe, that victims should have a role at the hearings under section 745. It is for that very reason that three years ago we proposed in Bill C-41 that the right be given.

The hon. member and his party voted against Bill C-41. Since Bill C-41 was tabled, the Supreme Court of Canada released a judgment which according to the common law, recognizes that judges have a discretion to allow victims to participate.

If the hon. member feels that any part of Bill C-45 interferes with the hearings of victims as such proceedings, I am happy to join with him in making such amendments as may be appropriate. In fact, last week-