Peter MacKay

[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.

[Points Of Order, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in light of reports this morning that confirm, or seem to confirm the government's intention to send a significantly larger force of ground troops to the Balkan region, will there be any indication from the government House leader, or from the government to the House, when parliament will be debating this decision and when there will be a vote on the commitment of further troops prior to the House recessing for the summer?

[Justice, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this debacle continues and the Department of Justice continues its attempts to cover its tracks in what could go down in history as the biggest political witch hunt of all time. It is an international embarrassment.

While the astronomical costs of this ridiculous, ill-founded investigation and litigation continue to mount, the Minister of Justice sits idly by, as did her predecessor.

When will the government cease and desist in its malicious and vindictive obsession to besmirch a former prime minister, from whom it plagiarized most of his policy initiatives?

[Justice, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the atrocious Airbus investigation makes the Canadian justice system the laughing stock of the international community.

The government continues to waste millions of taxpayers dollars on an investigation where the supposed prime suspect has not even been interviewed. The Liberals continue to find money for this investigation by cutting the RCMP, limiting the fight against organized crime and importation of drugs.

How can the Liberal government call itself accountable as it sits back and allows a foreign country to embark on an unlawful exercise of search and seizure when it knows full well that the exercise is not permitted under Canadian law?

[Industry Canada, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, HRDC is not the only department running afoul of the information commissioner. For over three years Industry Canada has refused to explain why it ignored its own published rules in the awarding of digital PCS licences.

One of the unsuccessful bidders, TeleZone Inc. of Toronto, tried to find answers through the Access to Information Act. Industry Canada's stonewalling led the information commissioner to conclude that the department had wrongfully denied TeleZone's request for information.

Consequently, the Federal Court of Canada is now reviewing the industry minister's refusal to act upon the recommendations of the information commissioner.

Meanwhile TeleZone has launched a $250 million civil lawsuit against the Government of Canada which will no doubt result in lengthy litigation.

If PCS licensing decisions in 1995 can bear public scrutiny, why is the Minister of Industry refusing to listen to the information commissioner? Is there a political angle? Will taxpayers be left holding the bag for Liberal incompetence again and again?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in the debate. I noted the comments of the member opposite and I echo much of that sentiment having worked in the court system as well. I know there has been an ongoing need and a need that continues with respect to the recognition of victims and the need to give them the dignity they require after having been victimized.

Sadly, time and time again in the country there have been occasions where victims have felt the wrath of the criminal in the community in the first instance, and then once again felt victimized by a system that was sometimes not sensitive to their needs and their overwhelming feelings of loss after having been victimized or preyed upon.

There is a great deal of positive impact that will be felt from the implementation of Bill C-79. I had the pleasure of participating in the round table that was referred to by the member opposite. We had an incredible representation of stakeholders from across the country from victims' groups. I am very proud to say that from the province of Nova Scotia we had tremendous participation, some might argue disproportionate participation, but it speaks well to our justice system and the sensitivity of my home province of Nova Scotia toward this need and this problem.

The victim impact statement is a matter of law that has been around for some time. It is, for those who might be unfamiliar with the concept, an opportunity for a victim to speak directly not only to the court but to those assembled and, perhaps most importantly, to the offender. It is an opportunity for victims to voice the feeling they might have encompassed as a result of what the offender had done to them personally, to their property or to a loved one. The expansion of the victim impact statement in its use and in its utilization within the courtroom is a very important step forward.

The knowledge that victims have of these processes that are available to them is something that is equally important because those tools, if not made familiar to victims, will not serve the purpose for which they are set out.

Victim impact statements are a very important aspect of the healing that has to take place subsequent to the commission of a crime and subsequent to the often arduous process that victims experience in the court. That includes the delay, the appeal, and often the very rigorous cross-examination and rigorous examination of circumstance that occurs in a courtroom. This is part of our legal system. It is part of the need and necessity to observe principles such as the presumption of innocence. Due process has to run its course, but the victims are often left feeling that this sterile process does not show enough compassion to the pain, not only the external pain but the internal pain that comes about as a result of criminal activity.

Through heightened awareness of the use of victim impact statements and the necessity now of the codification of the requirement that a judge inquire of the crown prosecutor, the victim or their representative as to whether they have availed themselves of a victim impact statement is an important step forward. I do have some reservations as to the broad application of this.

That matter was also raised by provinces, particularly New Brunswick. It brought forward a concern about the current wording of the sections in Bill C-79 which requires that a judge must make these inquiries of the prosecutor. It would be left open to interpretation by the judge in all instances or cases including victimless crime. I am speaking of a situation where damage is done to public property or an impaired driving case, which sadly still remain very prevalent in terms of the caseload in the courts.

When we have the requirement or the necessity for a judge in every instance, including victimless crimes, to make such an inquiry, my submission to the justice department would be that this will cause further delay because of the volume that exists in the courts. Although it may seem momentary in a single case that a judge makes this request or inquiry, when it is done time and time again it will result in a massive amount of wasted court time. Sadly we simply do not have the luxury to waste court time in this day and age.

My amendment is aimed specifically at denoting in a very straightforward way a suggestion to streamline this section that a judge must make these inquiries when a victim exists. I believe the language is such that it is made very clear.

Sadly we have seen time and time again legislation being drafted in a cumbersome and onerous way and being left open to all sorts of judicial and legislative interpretation that what is intended in the legislation is often misdirected and often misinterpreted. This does not serve the purpose the legislative drafters would hope to accomplish. It certainly would not serve the purpose that members of parliament who are involved in this process want to accomplish. We need streamlined, tight legislation, particularly in criminal law where there is a tremendous amount of problems and a tremendous backlog in courts throughout the land.

That is what lawyers do. Lawyers look for an interpretation that would be advantageous to their clients. That is part of the process. It will always be implicit in our legal system. However, common sense is something that should prevail. I believe it should begin at the very first instance, in the drafting process.

I am suggesting that through this amendment we can accomplish more because we can remove some of the delay that will flow from this current section of Bill C-79.

To speak to the larger issue of the impact of the bill, we have seen some very positive legislative initiatives which will touch upon some of the shortcomings that have existed prior to this time and will exist for some time until the actual implementation of Bill C-79 takes place.

One of those initiatives has been mentioned. It involves the use of victim fine surcharges. I have some reservations as to the actual practical application. I hope the revenue that will be generated by the application of victim fine surcharges will find its way into the hands of victims who are feeling aggrieved.

We all know it will not be possible to put victims back into the situation which existed prior to their victimization. We will not be able to remove the bruises, to unviolate a sexual assault victim. We will not be able to erase from their memories or remove the injurious effects which flow from an assault.

At least with some monetary compensation there is an attempt and a recognition. Oftentimes I would suggest strongly that it is recognition victims are looking for, a respect from not only the system but to some small degree perhaps from the accused, from the offender. Monetary compensation for personal damage to property or personal damage to clothing in some small way is a recognition.

I hope the victim fine surcharge will be administered properly. I hope it will not be used for administrative purposes as opposed to the intent, which is to put money or compensation into the pocket of the victim.

I am very pleased to have been a part of the process that brings us to this stage, the deliberations that took place in the justice committee. I was very pleased to see the positive and non-partisan approach taken by all members of the committee. That is very apparent in the House today and we will see it again when it comes time to vote on this legislative initiative.

I congratulate members of the committee. I have no reservation in acknowledging the Minister of Justice and her commitment to this issue. I must recognize as well the late Shaughnessy Cohen as having played an integral part in getting this piece of legislation to the point where we see it today. It is a very fitting tribute to her memory that these implementations will be coming about, to use the minister's words, in a timely fashion.