Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again to speak in support of Bill C-251. I am pleased to follow the comments of my colleague from Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He raised some very soul searching and gut wrenching questions in his commentary.

Obviously today's debate and throughout the time that we have seen this issue arise in the House and in committee it invokes a very emotional response, as do victimization and violence in most instances.

I pay tribute again to the member for Mississauga East for her tireless work on the issue and for bringing it forward. Today's vote will be a testament to that hard work and determination. It is because of this perseverance and persistence that we will have an opportunity to bring about a law that will in my opinion more accurately reflect the conscience of the country and the need to protect individuals from violent offenders.

The basic and just principle of consecutive sentences has proved to be too much for some soft on crime members of the Liberal government. As many members know and as has been previously stated, previous polls have been conducted which seem to suggest that Canadians overwhelmingly support the principle of stiffer sentences when it comes to the issue of high end violence, the violation of people and their lives.

While some members of the Liberal government defend rehabilitation and parole for multiple murderers and rapist, Bill C-251 calls for the House to defend the rights of victims of multiple offenders such as Mr. Olson's victims numbered one through eleven. The bill would given individualized recognition to those victims and give their families some much deserved justice for the atrocities that were committed against them and their loved ones.

It would also send a strong message to potential criminals that the Canadian justice system would no longer ignore the number of innocent lives that are shattered. I urge the House to take action and follow the lead of the hon. member for Mississauga East to stop the volume discount for crime sprees, for serial rape and murder.

Perhaps our actions today will impact on the future of some loved ones. This current incarnation of Bill C-251 reflects a compromise, an improvement and an explanation of many of the clauses that previously existed in a bill which the Progressive Conservatives also supported.

While the current proposal cannot address the concerns of every member in the House or every member of society, it is a concrete shift in the right direction. It will not be retroactive. There have been many arguments about discretion and the imposition of judicial discretion on an issue such as this one. It has been used on both sides of the argument quite ironically. I suggest in this instance that it allows a judge increased discretion to reflect the applicable laws upon the conscience of the community.

No one is suggesting for a moment that we remove all other sentencing principles, the protection of the public and the need for rehabilitation and general or specific deterrents, considerations with which my hon. colleague for Sydney—Victoria would be familiar.

It certainly does not remove the situation where a person can in fact be rehabilitated. I am of the personal belief, and I have read extensively on this issue, that there are some in society who simply are not amenable to rehabilitation. They simply cannot be rehabilitated. They are those who are at the very high end of the violence inflicted upon individuals.

It is extremely unfortunate. It is not something that a person wants to admit quite readily, but if we are to believe that the protection of society is the primary responsibility of legislators and the primary responsibility of our justice system then we must recognize that a very small minority of criminals in the country are simply beyond that rehabilitative scope.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria spoke of a 50 year foresight, that he did not believe there could be such a thing. I suggest quite the opposite. I would rather have an attempt at a 50 year foresight than a one year after the fact contemplation of what could have been done when a person was released for whatever reasons or whatever criteria and went out to rape and kill again.

Bill C-251 was previously introduced and dealt with in the justice committee. It has had intense scrutiny. There has been an opportunity for members of that committee and members of the House to look at the issue in depth. There has been a concerted effort on the part of some members of the justice committee to undermine and completely dismiss or remove the issue from public debate. That is very unfortunate because there are significant number of members in this place and an overwhelming number of Canadians who support the initiative of the hon. member.

The fact that this is a tough, philosophic issue, as are many issues that we often find ourselves debating and facing in the House, is not justification for turning a blind eye or refusing to deal with each.

The current language in the bill shifts sentencing for multiple crimes of rape and murder from concurrent to consecutive but the discretion still exists. There is no mandatory minimum or maximum reflected in this change.

The current bill and its amendments do not guarantee consecutive sentences in any way. It grants judicial discretion for cases where consecutive sentence would not be in line with our fundamental principles of justice.

The bill does not change the status quo from mandatory concurrent sentences to consecutive, barring any judicial discretion on behalf of defendants. When justice chooses not to enforce these consecutive sentences, however, the bill has amendments that would require that justice explains to the victims and their families why these sentences would not be served concurrently or would be served concurrently as opposed to consecutively.

If this legislation is enacted, judges will be given the opportunity to mete out an appropriate sentence for animals like Bernardo, Olson and Roby. I want to put these cases forward because it is important in the context of the debate.

After being found guilty of the savage sadistic murders of two teenage girls in the 1990s, Paul Bernardo received two concurrent life sentences. He can apply for judicial review of his sentence in 2008 and is eligible for day release in 2015.

Clifford Olson is serving 11 concurrent life sentences. His sentence is not all that more serious than if he only took one life. That is to say all of his sentences together reflect the same sentence that a person would receive for taking one life.

Pedophile John Roby was convicted of 35 counts of sexually abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn that after being convicted of 27 accounts of these assaults, Mr. Roby received a two year prison term. After several other victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal increased the sentence just to five years.

In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with three counts of first degree murder. After being convicted he will be eligible for early parole in just 15 years under the faint hope clause.

They are just some examples, some of the more extreme high end examples, but nonetheless they are examples for the need of this legislation. It would be a shift in the right direction. It is my hope that this bill will also mark an important shift in the mindset and the philosophy of the government.

It is also a welcome example of what can occur with co-operation. In tribute to a member of the government, a backbench parliamentarian, without the support of her party leaders and without the support of a logical explanation as to why that support does not exist, she has persevered. Under the current government, the debate let alone the passage of this bill has been opposed by a number of party members, her colleagues. This is a rare occasion where a vote will take place that would allow a very logical and very worthwhile piece of legislation to pass.

Much semantics and rhetoric accompany the debate but it is important to point out again that life in this country does not equal life imprisonment. That attachment does not occur. Parole eligibility in 25 years is not the equivalent of life imprisonment.

Very few high end criminals make it to that 25 year point before they apply and are indeed accepted for parole. Fifty years ineligibility would be a more reflective response. It would be a move in the right direction if judges were permitted to mete out a sentence that was more reflective of the public sentiment. Rehabilitation and other principles of sentencing will not be overridden.

This greater discretion should be encouraged and embraced by members of the House. Democratic principles should be respected as they were when previous occasions allowed members of the House to vote in favour of this bill. I encourage all members present to support Bill C-251.

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to address again an issue that should come as a real shock to most Canadians.

The Liberal government, through Canada's Corrections and Conditional Release Act, through the CSC, has this insidious plan that it wants to release 50% of the inmate population by the year 2000.

We have been looking at this issue at the justice committee. We had the privilege of having the CSC commissioner, Ole Ingstrup, bless us with his presence the other day. He still denies that this is even a fact.

This is absolutely shocking. This is a malodorous plan that was hoisted upon an unsuspecting public some time ago. If this is allowed to happen, once again the Canadian public will be affected by this. It will be an absolute disgrace if this is allowed to happen.

We know that there have been internal memos circulated by CSC officials setting out specifically that there are targets. The unfortunate language used was that there are numerical goals, balanced distribution, a reintegration agenda, plan or process, achievable numbers, release objectives, equalization between institution and community population, and agreed upon goals. They are very careful never to use the word quotas, though, but we do know that a quota is a quota is a quota.

Nowhere in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does it ever talk about numerical goals, targets or redistribution. Yet this is the type of language that very clearly sets out this insidious plan.

The commissioner was very reluctant to admit that this has happened. Yet it is very clear that there was a plan to open the doors of the jails and let 50% of the inmate population back out on to the street without following the proper process that is put in place to determine the criteria as to whether inmates should be released.

Another very disturbing point about it is that it is completely contrary to law. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that it is even happening, although in fact this documentation clearly shows that there has been directions given to corrections and conditional release officials. There is obviously a disincentive for wardens not to follow the directives which have come from deputy commissioners such as Brendan Reynolds in Ontario.

There are even specific numbers referenced for the province of Ontario: 660 inmates are to be released by December 31, 1999. It is absolutely unbelievable that this could be going on at a time when our law enforcement community is working harder and harder with less resources, at a time when the public confidence is perhaps at an all time low in our justice system. Yet this plan is hatched in a very secretive way.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence that these statistics are referenced in internal documents, the commissioner simply says unfortunate language was used. There is a complete denial on behalf of the solicitor general's department that it was even happening.

Although their knuckles have been rapped and this has been exposed for what it was, which is an absolute sham, the government is now saying it never happened and that it was not in place at all. I suspect the government will slink away with its tail between its legs and simply proceed in perhaps some other fashion.

This is an extremely dangerous initiative. What has taken place should come as a great shock to anybody who is working currently in corrections.

There is absolutely no doubt that this plan was afoot. The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general will rise shortly and tell us that it was not happening. We know it was happening. Thankfully, through the diligence of the opposition, we have exposed it. Through the diligence of Ontario victims services, it has been exposed for what it was. We hope it will be changed. We do not want to see it proceeding any further.

[The Late Douglas Harkness, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness but also honour that I rise today to pay tribute to the late Hon. Douglas Harkness who died in Calgary at the age of 96.

His gallantry during World War II was recognized by the awarding to him of the George Medal, truly an exemplary accomplishment.

Mr. Harkness was elected to the House of Commons in 1945 and retired in 1972 as the member for Calgary Centre. Those 27 years of public service were ones of great change and great challenge in Canada. He helped mould those changes on both sides of the House and in the cabinet room.

Those members who came to parliament after the second world war must have been a very distinct breed. They came from the battlefields directly into the House, determined to build a great nation. They recognized the debt owed to their comrades in arms. They had a vision of a better country and they set about to bring that vision to fruition.

This was reflected in Mr. Harkness' first speech in this place. He had served in the Royal Canadian Artillery and yet his first act when he appeared in the House of Commons was to make a plea for better treatment for the foot soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces, the lowest paid men whom he regarded as being part of the most significant effort in the war in Europe. He championed better pay and conditions for the services which are more in keeping with the risks they run and the conditions they endure.

The Canada that we see today is different from what we saw in 1945. Douglas Harkness and his family, his wife and son who predeceased him, helped build this into a better nation.

I am very honoured to stand in this place and express the thanks of Canadians for his decades of public service and express our regrets and sympathies to his family on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister spoke of being a good member of parliament. Good members of parliament certainly should not approve grants and loans to questionable individuals in their ridings, particularly before receiving departmental approval. Certainly, a good member of parliament should not be funnelling $6.3 million to Liberal supporters who bailed out his own troubled numbered company.

Can the Prime Minister explain how such a blatant abuse of taxpayers' money is his definition of being a good member of parliament?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can do three simple things to clear the air over this growing scandal.

He can release the 363 pages withheld from the member for Markham's access to information requests. He can disclose all of the documents regarding the CIDA contract to Claude Gauthier. He could direct the auditor general to investigate this entire matter by invoking section 11 of the Auditor General Act.

I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not do these three simple things?

[Division No. 538, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would again seek unanimous consent to have the results of the vote just taken applied to the remaining four votes.

[Gun Control, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, some of these people are voters. To date, the government's failure to provide efficient and timely gun legislation has forced over 5,000 businesses to close. This complicated and cumbersome bill discriminates against law-abiding owners and does nothing to stop real criminals. The Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association has stated its members will go to jail rather than comply.

How much money must be spent and how many law-abiding citizens must go to jail before the minister's unworkable, insanely costly registration plan is scrapped?

[Gun Control, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to the government's own figures at the end of May, the total number of firearms registered in the Canadian firearms registry system is now 50,000. The total number of those registered to individuals is only 7,000 for 5,000 people. The laughable Liberal November estimates that the gun registration costs are $133.9 million means that this public relations exercise to date has cost a whopping $26,000 per person or $19,000 per gun. At this rate it will take over 400 years to register all the firearms in Canada.

When will the minister end the madness, display some common sense and cancel this ridiculous registration?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. I am also very pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member who moved this particular motion and who has been so diligent in her pursuit of this particular issue. Her perseverance is certainly noted by Canadians, by victims and by those who work closely in the justice system.

There are a number of quick facts that I want to bring to the attention of members present and the Canadian public with respect to the effects of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing.

After being convicted of a savage and sadistic murder of three teenage girls in the 1990s, Mr. Bernardo was sentenced to receive three concurrent life sentences. This individual, although subject to dangerous offender provisions, under the old sections could apply for judicial review of his sentence in the year 2008. He would be eligible for day release in the year 2015, after taking three lives.

Clifford Olson is currently serving 11 concurrent life sentences. He will not spend one extra day in jail than if he had taken only one life.

Pedophile John Roby had been convicted of 35 counts of sexually abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn that, after being convicted to 27 counts of sexual assault on children, Mr. Roby was sentenced to a two year prison term. After several other victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in its wisdom, did increase the sentence but only to five years.

In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with three counts of first degree murder and he will be eligible for parole after 15 years under the old faint hope clause, again, an abominable section of our Criminal Code.

In 1977 there were 296,737 violent crimes committed in Canada. Included in that number were 581 homicides. These are telling statistics. Just imagine if these murderers realized that they could continue to take lives of victims without any fear of a stronger punishment, which is the current situation. Parliament is ultimately encouraging, as the hon. member has repeated time and time again, volume discounts with respect to the most high end, most serious and heinous crimes in the country.

To that end, the perception is what is sometimes most important, the feeling among the criminal element that the justice system will not react in an appropriate and proportional way.

In 1994 a top Italian judge made this commentary on Canada's justice system. He stated that Canada is becoming a haven for organized crime due largely to Canada's lenient judicial system.

Bill C-251 passed second reading by a vote of 81 to 3 in the House. This is an overwhelming majority with respect to a piece of legislation such as this. This particular bill then proceeded on to the justice committee where it was gutted by the Liberal majority on that committee. I would suggest that this is an affront to parliament because certainly this shows a lack of respect for the original will that was passed in the House.

The Department of the Solicitor General has released statistics that show that a released child molester who targets male victims had a 77% recidivism rate. For 100 of those largely repeat offenders who are released that is 77 more young lives that could be shattered as a result of repeat offences.

This particular debate taking place today is the third incarnation of what have been many years of diligent effort and perseverance on the part of my hon. colleague from Mississauga East. The House has displayed in the past a lack of courage to approach this type of legislation. The House can be assured that it will be proposed again and again unless the House fulfils its responsibilities to the victims of repeat offenders.

Many critics of the bill will look south of the border, point to the United States and say that consecutive sentences do not reduce crime. However, many will also recognize, including the hon. member opposite, that crime rates will go down with respect to the perpetration of crime by those specific individuals who would be sentenced to longer periods of incarceration if the bill were to pass.

Canada's obligation is to ensure the protection of its citizens first and foremost. The rudimentary principles of justice dictate that a judge take into consideration issues such as general and specific deterrents. Reformation and rehabilitation, of course, always play a part of it. Deterrents and denunciation is often whispered in the halls of justice. It is not something that individuals seem quick to discuss. However, the protection of the public is the primary duty and obligation of those tasked with enforcement of law in the country.

The rate of violent crime has increased by an average of 4% every year from 1978 to 1993. It is now 400% higher in the country than it was in the 1960s. There has, however, been a slight decline of 3% between 1993 and 1994. According to victimization studies undertaken by Statistics Canada, in 1993 24% of all adult Canadians were victims of at least one criminal act within the preceding 12 months. Canadians are 50% more likely than Europeans and 500% more likely than Japanese to be victims of burglary, assault, sexual offences or robbery. This comes from Statistics Canada, 1993, CCJS, Juristat , Vol. 14, No. 17, 1994 edition.

According to a 1996 Pollara survey which was conducted independently by the hon. member for Mississauga East, 90% of Canadians support this legislative initiative in some incarnation. That number also includes the support of the Canadian Police Association, the victims resource centre spokesman Steve Sullivan and other interested groups.

The entire issue of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing has received a great deal of debate in this place. The principle is quite simple. There are very strict guidelines that direct judges in the country currently with respect to the imposition of sentencing. Proportionality is something that must always be kept in mind. Judges do not have a cookie cutter approach when they are faced with the imposition of a sentence.

The hon. member in this legislation has increased discretion on the part of a judge. A judge is not mandated by this legislation to impose a consecutive sentence; a judge is however in extremely aggravated circumstances in a situation at the high end of violence with repeat connotations of sexual assault or violence. In those instances why would we hesitate to put into the hands of a judge the discretion to respond in a more appropriate and proportionate fashion? Why would we shirk that responsibility?

The hon. member has brought this matter forward. She has been extremely patient with her own government in putting water with the wine when it came to amendments to this bill. She does have the support of many on the opposition side and I suggest many on the government side. She has also expressed quite fairly and accurately in her statements here today that this is a matter that should be put to a vote.

The democratic will should be expressed on an issue of such great importance. A vote would be the expression of the democratic will of parliament. Without it, it will not reflect the democratic will of the people of Canada.

Concurrent sentences ignore the individuality and the pain and violation that is suffered by victims of crime. A specific recognition of each crime, of each victim is what this legislation seeks to achieve. Violence must be met by the state with strength. This bill allows the state to respond appropriately in very limited circumstances where high end violence is at the centre of the court proceedings.

That is what this bill seeks to do. It puts greater discretion forward. Why would we not want to put the trust in the hands of our judiciary to exercise that discretion appropriately? We are infinitely aware in this place of the checks and balances and the safeguards that do exist with respect to courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us not miss this opportunity today to bring this legislation to a point where a vote will occur, where the expression of the people of Canada will be heard.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to follow the remarks of the hon. member. She obviously has a great deal of insight into this issue.

It is fair to say it is a very significant and timely issue when we are speaking of victims rights. Sadly our news is often filled with tragedies involving victims. I speak of most recently the Kosovars who find themselves displaced because of an extremely cruel and malicious government. I speak of the victims in the Littleton, Colorado tragedy and those in Taber, Alberta. I speak of victims like Sheldon Kennedy. I speak of victims like those in the Toronto Maple Leaf Gardens scandal.

Our news is often filled with heart-wrenching tragedies that surround victims and their lives. There is certainly a highlighted need for legislative initiatives that address these types of issues.

As is stated in the report itself and in its title which is quite appropriately “A Voice, Not a Veto”, victims are not looking to upset the balance that has to exist and the implicit degree of fairness that the scales of justice represent. The victims are not looking for an ability to overturn the rights of presumption of innocence or in any way to offset the entire justice system in terms of how they deal with an accused person in the first instance.

There is a need however that victims have to seek recognition and at times retribution from those who prey upon them. I feel this legislation moves forward but does not go as far as it possibly could or should. However it takes a significant step forward and there is that recognition that is ever present and ever important in our justice system.

We have seen in many instances the prosecution of cases that take a tremendous amount of time. Delay is often described as the deadliest form of denial. Victims need to have an assurance that justice will be done in a timely fashion and in such a way that they feel the state has intervened appropriately and in a way that is compassionate and understanding not only of the strict, sanitized, sterile legal necessities, but of those humane aspects that are involved in criminal activity and victimization. There is a need to give that assurance and the legislation makes strides in that direction.

The Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports this legislation. We were active in the round table that took place last summer. We were active at the committee with respect to the study of this legislation. Numerous witnesses gave their testimony in a very forthright and succinct way. They cried out for change and cried out for a law that will perhaps streamline our justice system.

There is the ever present need to get away from lengthy bureaucratic and sometimes cumbersome language that pollutes our Criminal Code and much of the legislation we deal with particularly when it comes to matters of criminal justice. Because of the lengthy delays that are often involved, justice in the end is denied if it is not brought forward.

That is what members of the opposition and members of the Progressive Conservative Party were trying to do when amendments were moved this morning. I resent in some way the suggestion that it was anything other than a sincere attempt to improve this legislation. There was no disingenuous intent whatsoever in trying to define the language that will eventually be in the hands of the courts and the prosecution and the defence. It was simply an attempt to simplify and to put a more succinct definition forward when it comes to the implementation of some of the changes we will see as a result of Bill C-79.

There is one other glaring omission that I have to point out with respect to Bill C-79. It is the refusal of the Minister of Justice and the government itself to acknowledge the need for a victims ombudsman office. The office would be modelled on that of the correctional investigator.

I find it more than perverse that we have an office budgeted for the sole needs and protection and furtherance of criminals who are currently paying their debt to society incarcerated behind bars. I am not saying they do not need that protection at times, but we do not have a similar office set up for those who are victimized by those same individuals who are currently incarcerated. I find that an affront to everything that is true about our justice system.

There has been some discussion about the need for this and although I believe the Minister of Justice does have some sensitivity and fairness to this and although I believe the late Shaughnessy Cohen also supported the government's moving in this direction, we have not reached that point. I believe it was a missed opportunity under this legislation.

Politicians sometimes get bogged down with the legalities and politics of an issue and forget the human side. As an overall statement it is fair to say that the debates surrounding this legislation both in committee and here on the floor of the House of Commons have been fairly non-partisan in nature.

Bill C-79 is an attempt to give recognition to and to change and enhance some of the current laws, particularly when it comes to issues such as victim impact statements. As has been previously enunciated by other members, these statements are a very important part of the healing process and a part of the codified recognition victims play in a courtroom. It is an opportunity for them to speak directly to the judge, to all present, and equally important, to the accused. At the end of the day when a conviction has been rendered on the perpetrator in the matter, it is an attempt for the victim in some small way to put into words what the victim's ordeal has been. I suspect that for many this is a very important part of the healing process.

With all of that said, there are other problems in the justice system we are currently aware of that impact directly on victims. Some of those problems stem from areas outside of this particular legislative scheme.

I am speaking now of the difficulty within Correctional Service Canada. We know a very dangerous and insidious plan has been put forward and perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. I am talking about the 50% release plan that was dreamed up by some genius to see that 50% of the current inmate population is released back into society by next year.

It is a very dangerous thing when quotas are put in place and targets are put forward. One would suspect this to override the existing legislative safeguards, the existing criteria to be met in the decision on whether a person will be released from incarceration, particularly when one looks at the degree of violence and often the lengthy accumulation of a violent record that it takes for a person to eventually be found incarcerated in a federal institution.

I realize that is somewhat outside the gamut or the scope of what we are discussing today but it is something I find to be extremely alarming. It impacts on victims. We know the victim's plight does not end after a conviction has been rendered. It does not end after the person who has preyed upon the victim has been incarcerated. It continues.

Unfortunately there is an unbreakable link between a victim and the person who has perpetrated violence or some form of an injustice upon them. That link remains. It is not one the victim asked for or certainly desired but it is there and it is often lifelong and life altering.

Victims are spouses, children, parents, siblings and those not only affected in a direct physical way by the violence but the members of a family who are often left suffering in the wake of a direct attack on a loved one. They can also benefit from victims services and improvements in legislation that can impact directly on the delivery of victims services.

I refer to my comments about the need for a victims ombudsman office where direct information could be disseminated to victims, to those persons in need of information. It has been pointed out time and time again that one of the real downfalls of our justice system is our inability to get this information into the hands of those who need it most and those who wish to be informed and those who wish to be forewarned of the release of a person from incarceration.

With proper amendments, improvements could be made to this bill. However because of the need to bring it forward with the steps that have been taken, the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill when it comes to a vote in the House.

Our party certainly supports the entrenching of the victim surcharge that will be brought about as a result of this legislation. The fact that there will be financial compensation will never fully compensate a person for a crime that has been perpetrated, but it will at least be some recognition that a crime has been committed which has impacted upon a person. Although it does not compensate for the emotional and sometimes physical harm, it is a recognition that there is a loss. Sometimes a dollar figure will not be adequate but at least it is a recognition.

It is the hope of the Conservative Party, in fact I suggest the hope of all members, that this money will not be eaten up or misdirected in terms of cumbersome administration, but that the legislation will ensure that the money is in the hands and the pockets of those directly affected by criminal activity.

There is much to talk about in the area of victims and victims rights and the ability to bring victims into a system that is often very insensitive and sometimes very sterile when it comes to the approach taken to those who are most directly affected. However, in the interest of balance and the interest of protecting the integrity of the system, one has to be very leery of putting too much in motion. I am sometimes reticent to say that because this is a very emotional issue.

We heard testimony time and time again before the committee from victims themselves, from parents, and from those affected by the perpetration of crime. There is no denying that it is a very emotional issue. However, in the courtroom there is an attempt to sometimes remove or ignore the emotion in the interest of getting to the truth of the matter and moving a case through the court in perhaps a more timely fashion.

I would not say the bill was the brain child of any one particular person or any one party, but Shaughnessy Cohen's name is very closely associated with this government initiative, and rightly so. She worked as a crown prosecutor in the city of Windsor and was obviously an advocate of victims. It is very important that her name be inextricably attached to this legislative initiative.

The position of my party with respect to victims has been unwavering. In 1997 the election platform of the Conservative Party proposed the creation of a victims charter of rights. This is again not a new initiative, not something that one party can claim ownership of, but it is a recognition that certain inalienable rights have to be entrenched in our law to ensure that victims are protected.

There are very positive aspects of the bill with respect to the publication of the name of a victim or witness. Those initiatives are there for the protection of identity. They make very clear that victims oftentimes are in great jeopardy if their names are known publicly or published through some form of media. Protection and the ability to put into the hands of the court the tools to protect those whose names if published would be vulnerable is a very important initiative.

There is a great deal of jargon associated with the practice of law. Victims need information, particularly in matters such as parole ineligibility or eligibility and court proceedings. There is a significant effort now to ensure that the victim is given basic information on where they sit in a courtroom, what the proceedings mean, and what certain references and legal terms mean.

Victims services throughout the provinces will be enhanced by some of the initiatives in Bill C-79. In the constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in my home province of Nova Scotia there are those who are currently involved in victims services. There are working very diligently and will be very thankful for this legislation. I am speaking of individuals like Judy Whitman, Coreen Popowich and many others involved in the furthering of victims rights.

This evening in Nova Scotia I am attending a fundraising event for the Tearmann society located in New Glasgow. It is a home for battered women. Once again I will be very pleased to bring word on the bill moving forward through the House in the fashion we have seen.

I do not have any further negative comments to make other than the fact that the legislation before us today is long overdue. The provinces have some concerns with respect to the consultation process, but we understand like others and like those who have spoken previously that any step forward is seen as a positive step. It is something that we do not intend in any way to hinder. We are trying to move it forward as quickly as possible.

Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario have increased the funding to victims services. If there is any other shortcoming it would be that the government has not necessarily provided the significant resources required for the implementation of some of the programs that will stem from the legislation. As well, the federal government should now be perhaps looking specifically at funding some of these programs and avoiding duplication with the provinces, which is again something that all of us would be very reticent if we did not point it out.

The Young Offenders Act has been revised and the new youth criminal justice act will be coming into effect at some point, I suspect in the fall of the coming year. It is very important that there be an attempt made to ensure that these two pieces of legislation work in unison. I am speaking now of the areas of victims services and their administration and the costs associated with victims who are preyed upon by violent youth.

Sadly, without getting into a long diatribe about the new youth criminal justice system, I am reticent to say that much of the need that has been identified time and time again in the shortcomings of the old youth justice act will not be met by the new legislation.

With respect to victim surcharges and with respect to the identification and protection of victims, these legislative initiatives will attach to the new youth criminal justice system and must be viewed in a positive light.

We have heard a number of graphic examples not only in the House but through the media. At committee level we have heard horror stories about individuals who were crying out for the attention and protection of this place through legislation: the courts that inevitably interpret and decide much of the law and our law enforcement agencies and our frontline workers like children's aid and social services, those tasked with the very weighty and sometimes extremely difficult task of delivering services. It is somewhat sad that we do not see a greater emphasis and a greater amount of priority placed on individuals on the frontline and in the trenches of the administration of laws such as Bill C-79.

To its credit the government has brought forward the legislation through the co-operation of members of the House and members of the committee. There are very positive initiatives that come from it. I know that victims advocates and victims themselves will be benefiting from the legislation when it becomes incorporated.

The Conservative Party of Canada continues in its commitment to furthering the rights of victims, to furthering the rights of those who are downtrodden in our justice system generally and are looking for positive change, in a non-partisan fashion.

I congratulate all those who have been involved in moving the legislation forward. We look forward to continued attempts to bring forward these types of positive initiatives. I caution the government that if this is not happening, through the diligence of this party we will try to bring these matters forward to ensure that Canadians get the protection they need, deserve and should expect from their government.