Allan Rock

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 29th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

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

[Somalia Inquiry, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the issue to which the hon. member refers involves a request by counsel for some of the parties to look at hours and hours of videotape in respect of which as I understand it production has already been made with respect to summaries of the evidence that was recorded thereon. The position taken by counsel for the department on that request is that the commission's time is better spent looking at other issues than at looking at hours and hours of videotape which may not be germane or relevant and the substance of which has already been disclosed.

I can say that the position taken by counsel is based on the premise that this is a collateral matter. May I also say my understanding is that counsel has offered to the commission that it should look at the hours and hours of videotape and decide for itself whether there is any purpose to be served in taking time to display it.

[Domestic Violence, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, all the tools or remedies or procedures that the hon. member is suggesting are either already available or well within the grasp of police forces in Canada. It is a

question of the police forces themselves making use of those remedies and those procedures.

With respect to the nature of the gun being responsible for the tragedy in British Columbia, let me observe that the reason we are after the registration of all firearms and the reason the House has now approved that in Bill C-68 is that information available to the police to better enable them to predict such tragedies and take remedial steps to remove firearms will be available to all police across the country. That is what we achieved with Bill C-68.

[Domestic Violence, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, such discretion is provided for already and is well within the administrative powers of police forces at present.

While I recognize the very genuine concern on the part of the hon. member in his question and the tragedy in Vernon, I must say, before concluding my response, that there is a healthy measure of irony in the hon. member's question.

It was the member and his colleagues who for months stood in the House to oppose the measures we introduced in Bill C-68 to more rationally control access to and use of firearms, to put in place systems and processes that would enable authorities to follow up in cases of domestic abuse and to make sure firearms are removed from persons who represent a danger to themselves or others.

To hear the hon. member today suggesting that further steps should be available in such cases is indeed a very distinct irony.

[Justice, April 29th, 1996]

We will be here a long time if we wait until the hon. member finds the right way to ask the question.

The answer of course, is that when there are resolutions, as there are today involving victims' rights, members of this party vote as they see fit. I already told the House this morning that I am going to be voting in favour of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect that other members of the government side will vote as they see fit.

We are doing that because the resolution before the House today raises issues in which we share the objectives of all members of the House, that victims be treated properly and with dignity throughout the criminal justice system.

[Justice, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me put the hon. member out of his misery.

[Liberal Party, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will decide whether this party will have a free vote on that amendment and he will do that when it is appropriate to do so.

In response to the question put by the hon. member, first, the reality is that for a party such as hers which is so interested in taking head counts in polls before deciding how its members will vote, the party opposite should know that as recently as this weekend the Liberal Party of Canada had no difficulty in deciding where it stands on the issue by overwhelmingly voting in favour of the amendment we proposed. Second, an Angus Reid poll which polled the views of Canadians across the country announced that the vast majority of Canadians are behind this amendment.

If that is not good enough for the Reform Party, there is something wrong with it.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the problem with the principles of 1988 is not their age. The problem is the extent to which they may or may not have been acted on. What we are talking about today are principles. We are not talking about specific legislation.

There were concrete steps taken after 1988. After those principles were adopted the Criminal Code was amended to add provisions for the identification and prompt return of property to victims from whom it had been improperly taken; prohibitions on the publications of the identity of certain victims; the use of victim impact statements; the imposition of a victim fine surcharge and restitution provisions. There were steps taken after 1988.

Where we find common ground today is that those principles are fine. They may even be improved on by the form of words used by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. We will look at that, but not enough has been done to respect and to act on those principles.

I made reference to some legislation that we have introduced. There is no doubt more can be done and we have a willingness to do it. The important thing is to bring those principles to life in the way we write the law and in the way we administer it. On that we have common ground.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

The practice or the habit on this side of the House has been to invite members to vote as they see fit. I have no difficulty supporting this resolution in matters of this kind whether it is a resolution or a private member's bill.

I do not regard reference to other legislation that we have introduced as beside the point. I do not pretend it is enough but I also do not think that the discussion is complete unless we refer to it.

The Young Offenders Act, Bill C-37, allowed for the first time, and it was quite remarkable, victim impact statements to be introduced. I am sure the hon. members would agree with that proposition.

In Bill C-41, section 745 was amended to permit the victims to participate in the hearing. That arose directly out of a meeting I had with Marie King Forrest whose husband was a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer in Saskatchewan who was murdered. The offender was bringing a 745 application and she was not able to take part. As a result of that, I amended Bill C-41 to include a specific provision that would add to section 745 of the code a statement that victims' perspectives must be taken into account when those applications are brought.

In the case of Daviault and the Supreme Court of Canada, where there was self-induced excessive intoxication, there was an allegation of sexual assault. There was a victim in that case. In the name of that case and the name of the principle for which we felt we should stand, we introduced Bill C-72 to say self-induced intoxication should not and cannot be an answer in that circumstance. That involved a victim.

In the DNA bill, Bill C-104, I remember Mr. Manning being on the Hill a year ago and bringing his circumstances as a victim very forcefully to our attention. He and other victims were the beneficiary of that legislation.

I do not agree with the hon. member that the legislative steps that have been taken are separate, because they are very much a part of serving the cause of justice, including the perspective of victims, and I say they very much reflect the commitment of the government to that cause.

Many references the hon. member makes quite correctly to the ways the system falls short in being fair to victims have to do with administration and therefore provincial responsibility. Provinces across the country are having to reduce expenditures because of fiscal restraints. Crown attorneys are being laid off, court staff is being diminished and services are being reduced.

One challenge we will face in living up to the statement of principles adopted eight years ago is to achieve the principles with diminished resources. I emphasize for my friends opposite and for the House that it is a very important part of all this. Whether we have the resources federally and provincially to provide the kind of services that are required will be a challenge. It will mean giving priority to these efforts and reallocating money from other purposes. I believe it is the right thing to do.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, may I make my position clear. I am going to support this resolution tonight. I think it will be a free vote on our side of the House.