EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997

.1620

[English]

The Chair (Ms Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair, Lib.)): I will call the meeting to order, please.

Mr. White, it's nice to see you. Are you going to be sitting there alone or did you want others to join you? It's whatever you prefer.

Mr. Randy White, MP (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): There are some speakers. Perhaps they want to come here. That's great.

The Chair: I have a technical question. I assume you're also sitting in as a member of the committee today.

Mr. Randy White: Yes. I think we'll have another member or two here.

The Chair: I'm not suggesting that. I just wanted to make sure that you are here in all of your capacities.

Mr. Randy White: Why not?

The Chair: I didn't ask that you had both capacities. I just asked whether you're here in a bit of all of them, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: I'm at full capacity most days.

The Chair: Okay. This is the first formal hour of hearings on Standing Order 108(2), the consideration of the subject matter of motion 168, which is Mr. White's motion. It's a private member's motion, which had almost unanimous agreement, by the way, in the House. In accordance with our practice on this committee, we try to move these things along and shuffle them into the deck in terms of public and private business.

So, Mr. White, take whatever time you need. I understand the votes are now cancelled later through this evening so we can probably go as long as we need.

Mr. Randy White: We had two hours set aside, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to clarify one point. I'm not sure this is a private member's motion, but a motion we all agreed on, a supply day motion. The motion read that:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should direct that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs proceed with the drafting of a Victims' Bill of Rights and that, in such areas where the Committee determines a right to be more properly a provincial concern, the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard for a Victims' Bill of Rights.

The Chair: I stand corrected. I was suggesting that the motion initially was yours and it was therefore a private member's motion. It was adopted by the House and the matter was referred to us by the Minister of Justice, as requested in your motion.

Mr. Randy White: Madam Chairman, today is the beginning of yet another step in the restoration of the justice system, which has deteriorated, in my opinion, to a legal system these days.

I have so much to say, it seems, and so little time to say it here. I want to assure this committee that this is not about numerous amendments to the Criminal Code. As you know, I've asked the justice minister a number of times in the House of Commons, and the response I usually get back is, well, I've amended this and I've amended that.

This is about a national victims' bill of rights that provides guidance to all aspects of the Criminal Code, the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act and any other act that may apply. In fact, I took the liberty of looking at Hansard the other day when I asked the Minister of Justice a question. His comment was that it was one thing to use rhetoric when talking about a victims' bill of rights, but it is quite another thing to produce actual legislation that makes a difference in the lives of victims. That is exactly what this government has done.

There are a dozen examples of concrete ways in which the government has acted to help victims. As an example, I refer to Bill C-46, and I think he referred to Bill C-68 and some other bills.

.1625

This is not about providing an amendment under a certain section of the Criminal Code - and I'll refer to that a number of times.

I did ask for an access to information request on the response of the government to our position on victims' rights in this country. Lo and behold, I did find out from the information commissioner the following information, and apparently the government members are supposed to respond this way to victims' rights. The minister is looking at this now. Victim impact statements are presently used in the courts and in applications for parole. New legislation has been brought forward to protect victims of rape from harassing court situations. Ex-spouses will not be able to obtain firearms without the consent of their former partners.

I hope this is not the response, which it says it is, that the government is going to give to victims' rights, because it's really far away from the reality of what is required.

I recognize that some things are being asked here as a guideline on federal-provincial issues. Some are provincially administered, I think we all know that, but that isn't any different from many things in the Criminal Code that are administered to some extent by the provinces.

I want to start out by giving you an idea of some of the mindsets that are out there among criminal defence lawyers in particular. This will set the stage to show you what some of these folks sitting at this table are better able to tell you than I am - to some extent, the contempt part of that industry has for victims. And I want to run through a few quotes from defence attorney Russ Chamberlain, out of British Columbia:

There is no such thing as a victim. It's just a state of mind.

Victims want someone else to fix their petty problems.

Victims' impact statements are just a venting of the spleen and don't serve justice and should be outlawed.

That gives you an idea of some of the things that victims of any kind of crime face when they're up against some defence lawyers who have that kind of attitude.

This quote is from a criminologist who says:

Victims' rights groups have outlived their usefulness. What these groups are doing is pushing criminal justice policy towards punitive measures rather than rehabilitative measures.

Referring to victim impact statements, here is a quote from a judge in our country who says:

I am not entirely happy with them. For the most part, I don't think they make an awful lot of difference.

That speaks for itself.

The following comes from a criminologist, and I quote:

Victims should not have a formal right to make submissions before a judge since this will result in an arbitrary justice system.

So you can see the kind of mindset that is out there. It's not necessarily the mindset with every defence lawyer or criminologist, but it is there. It only takes a number of victims to face that, and you can see why there are concerns.

These are statements made by prominent Canadian criminal defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges and criminologists that typify an attitude - not uncommon in legal circles - that says, in effect, to victims of crime that they and their concerns have no place in the criminal justice procedure. The rights of criminals take precedence over those of their victims.

I'd like you to pay very careful attention to what I'm reading, because in many cases it comes from victims across this country. Much of what I'm going to read right now comes from a gentleman by the name of Keith Kempt, out of Mission, British Columbia.

Keith's young son was shot in the head and killed by a young offender. He's a very astute individual and he's writing a book for a fellow by the name of Darryl Plecas. This book is going to be taught in the schools, in the institutions of our country. So we're not dealing here just with victims' rights and victims' rights groups that have some particular dispute of a particular issue, we're also dealing with a complete education system that is going to come. This will become part of a book.

.1630

According to this mindset victims are seen as having petty problems, lacking in sound judgment and being vengeful and emotional and otherwise unreliable as a source of reason and fairness. They are frequently referred to as unreliable witnesses, are effectively silenced except for victims' impact statements and witness testimony, and are minimized in the unfolding case and judicial drama.

As well, in criminal proceedings the state assumes the role of and takes the place of the victim of crime, the crime being conceptualized as a crime against the state. The state in the form of the courts confronts the accused, while the actual victim, who is the personification of all other citizens who have not been so victimized, becomes an abstraction, subsumed by the legal process and ultimately treated as a non-entity.

Rules of evidence, the charter and its interpretation, plea bargaining, consecutive sentencing and mandated parole are all issues to which the victim has no means of address. They're all potential frustrations to the victim's need for fundamental justice, and it is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The number of victims in Canada has grown to a sizeable population. It is obvious there are far more victims of crime than there are perpetrators. I'm sure that is because of the multiple offenders, and history being the norm, it is an accumulative effect.

There are many common motives in their struggle, but one stands out: simply, they do not want what has happened to them to happen to somebody else. Often they have suffered pain and loss of quality of life at a level for which there can be no human justification. They reason that their loss cannot have been in vain and therefore they must do what they can to create a political, social and judicial reality where chances are reduced that someone else might suffer as they have. To this end, they are seeking a more prominent or at least a more equitable role in the judicial system. They're becoming advocates for the right of future victims not to be revictimized by a system that presently devotes more concern to offenders through the word of law than it does to those whom it is designed to protect through the spirit of the law.

Now, these folks here, I'm sure, are going to tell you what victims really want and really need much more than I will. I won't go through a lot of the individual issues, but suffice it to say I'm sure they want the measure of justice that both assures and ensures no one will ever again suffer as they have at the hand of the person who perpetrated the crime against them. I am certain they want recognition by the state that they are in fact recipients of the criminal behaviour. I'm certain as well they want the sanction to suit the crime. We hear every day, does the penalty meet the crime?

More importantly, I think, to this committee, I'd like to identify what they're up against. I'm sure they could say it as much as I can, as somebody who has not directly incurred the wrath of a criminal, although I've had some very unpleasant things happen in my family. I'm sure they can talk very well on what they're up against. But in my opinion victims have discovered that the system is more concerned with the word of the law than the spirit of the law and that there is more concern in the courtroom for rules and procedure than there is about public safety and loss of life. They're up against an intransigent attitude throughout the system that the rights of offenders take priority over the rights of victims, in spite of the fact that section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly denies that convicted offenders are guaranteed any rights at all.

They're up against a court system that declares itself impartial, while evidence disclosure is mandatory for the Crown but not for the defence; that allows multiple serious offences to be plea-bargained to guilty on one offence, which is often the less serious one; and where multiple convictions or serious offences result in concurrent sentencing.

.1635

They're up against a considerable history of prisoners' rights advocates. They're up against the legal profession as well as academia, which by and large operates on the assumption that violent criminals are determined and are therefore not as responsible for their behaviour as others who don't commit crimes.

Victims are up against a history of apathy and denial of the serious and predictable consequences of criminal and violent behaviour.

In legal procedure, victims must contend with changes of venue, which often impose unnecessary and considerable financial burden if they are to attend court. In court, as well, victims must also contend with the application of the rules of evidence, which require that the prosecution must rebut defence statements by providing proof that events occurred contrary to defence's version of the facts. Sometimes such proof is classified as inadmissible evidence and is therefore unavailable in court, because it may have been volunteered, for instance, during an interrogation with a lawyer present.

Victims and victims' groups are most often categorized by the legal professional, criminologists, and the media as being vengeful, driven, or seeking.

Next is the importance of victims' rights. I think we are awakening in this country to the reality that this justice system has become a legal industry. I believe we're rapidly losing confidence in the judiciary and in the system itself. I could tell you scores of stories of my time spent with victims over the last three and a half years that would be very unpleasant for this room. I don't intend to go through all that.

I spoke today on Bill C-41, conditional sentences. You've probably all heard of Darren Ursel, who took a young lady in my riding and did some terrible things to her for 90 minutes. Through all of the exercise, the judge basically said, ``Well, you're sorry for what you did and you were tender at times and it's your first offence, so we're going to let you off on a conditional sentence''. He walked away that day.

There are over 13,000 names on a petition. What's interesting about the petition is it's to debench the judge. When I hear things like that, I get concerned about the very integrity of our system, but that's how ugly the system is getting.

I don't think respect for the victim has been lower in years, quite frankly. I have accumulated a number of comments over my time about why the legal industry, for instance, objects to victims of crime participating in the courts. These are the reasons that I've found have been given.

They say it opens up another front against which the offender must defend. I would suggest that may be so and it may be time. They say it's because it compromises judicial independence: judges can't resist emotional and political pressures. Maybe it's time. They say it yields evidence irrelevant to the offender's case. I don't think so. They say it prejudices offenders because victims may encourage special sentences. I hope so. Also, a striking comment I received not too long ago was they don't want them involved in the courts because it's unfair to offenders because some victims may be eloquent speakers. You're about to hear some of that eloquence, and I certainly hope so.

The federal government is lagging far behind stressing values, a guiding light, an umbrella, for the Criminal Code, the Privacy Act, and the Access to Information Act. In fact there are two provinces now, Ontario and British Columbia - and I have the bills here - that have done some fairly good work on victims' rights. One might say that, yes, they should and that's their prerogative, because much of this is in the provincial sphere. But in talking to many of the people who were involved in developing these, I have yet to find one who hasn't agreed that it's really time the federal government set a national standard, something all provinces can agree to, so that if you are a victim in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, you know you have a certain set of values, a certain set of rights that apply.

.1640

I know the justice minister has mentioned - I think you gave it to me, Madam Chairman - some set of values from the United Nations. I forget what you call it, but the suggestion was that the government ascribes to this, agrees with these victims' statements in the United Nations.

The Chair: I think it was part of an international agreement that the government had signed at some point, but I don't know what year. I think it was the United Nations Declaration on Justice for Victims of Crime.

Mr. Randy White: I'm informed it was 1984...of basic principles of justice. But the fact is that although it was signed and agreed upon in 1984, these conditions still exist today. They're happening every day, and Theresa will be speaking on that. Some of these folks here just came out of the courtrooms this week and last week, and these things are still happening. Words are nice, but they really don't mean a lot unless there's some action to go with it.

The basic eight rights we documented and laid out as something that could be worked on - we're not saying it's all-inclusive; we're not saying that things cannot be amended on them - are certain values, certain rights that should pervade over these other bills.

I don't think it's asking too much in this day and age to define what a victim is. I sat in the living room of a family shortly after their daughter was shot, and the mother of that daughter was in very bad mental shape. The fact was that the husband could not get any acknowledgement or assistance for her, because she was not a victim. I'll never forget that session. The fact is that I don't think anybody could quite agree with this, although at that time she was not a victim according to the letter of the law in the province I was in.

So I think it is high time that the federal government asked what is a victim today. There are some spots in federal legislation where attempts are made at that, by the way.

I believe victims should have the right to be informed of their rights. Some of you may say, yes, they have, that in my province they do this or in my province they do that. I can assure you it's not just different in every province; it's different within the provinces.

Victims should have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process. This is all over the place in this country. I've worked with people who have had offenders change their name in Ontario, move to British Columbia, get out on the doorstep of the wife after this individual found that the spouse had moved from one province to another and changed their identity. She was not told anything. She wasn't even told he was out of prison. He got out to British Columbia and ``throttled her good.'' It's just happening all over.

I think we have to have some understanding that victims should have the right, if they want to know, of notification of arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender, what they're out on, how long they will be out for. And I hope no one here asks me whether this is a large cost, because I could go on a lot about where this government could save money and put it into the right areas like this.

.1645

Victims should have the right to choose between giving oral and/or written victim impact statements, or even videos, before sentencing and at any parole hearings and any judicial reviews. We only have to look at what happened in Bill C-45, which took that automatic right away.

I know we're debating that today. But you see, what we were debating today in the House was section 745 and whether or not an individual has the right to a victim impact statement. This has to go ahead of the Criminal Code so that we know that within the Criminal Code all victims always have the right to victim impact statements.

Victims should have the right to be informed, in a timely fashion, of the details of the Crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it's presented to the defence. My colleagues here will know that I asked that of the justice minister at Question Period. The answer was that it was strictly a provincial issue.

I will refer you to the motion that the justice minister agreed on and voted for last April, which said:

...in such areas where the Committee determines a right to be more properly a provincial concern, the Minister of Justice initiate consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national standard for a Victims' Bill of Rights.

So it is possible and he agrees with it.

Today, I think that victims have to know why charges are not laid, if that's the decision of the Crown or police. In many cases, they are never told. They have to have the protection from anyone who intimidates, harasses or interferes with the rights of the victim.

Again, today, you will remember that I gave just one instance - I could have given a dozen - where first-degree murderers, like Clifford Olson, send intimidating letters and describe how they've killed people. Yes, it may be a fault of the corrections system, but victims should have the right to stand up and say, I'm sorry, that's unacceptable. They should have the right to have police follow through on domestic violence charges. Once a victim files a complaint, the police should have the authority to follow it through to the end. Some people may say that is just going to put the victim into difficulties.

I happen to be a member of a domestic violence victims' rights group myself and I know for a fact that in most cases the women who are being beaten are intimidated and throttled if they don't withdraw the charges from police. It is a serious problem. The coercion steps in once a complaint has been laid.

Victims should have the right to know if a person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmittable disease. I could, again, give you many stories on that.

I'm going to stop because I think there are some far greater inputs you can hear from others here. Suffice it to say that I have seen us in this House debate amendments to bills and I have thought there have been some interesting amendments, but more importantly, every day when we debate them I ask why we are not out on the road asking victims about victims' rights.

We go across this country time and time again on the Young Offenders Act. This is important. Why not go out and ask them? Why give these folks here less than two hours just to discuss this?

Victims' rights, one day, will become law in this country, whether it's this government or another government - it will. I think victims in this country have come along way in the last five to seven years and they have a long way to go yet. You can be sure that this is one of the second or third rungs on the ladder that must be climbed, and it will be climbed.

I think by the mood in the public today, if it is not this government or the next government, there will just be a growing momentum against the governments that fail to do this.

.1650

I don't know, Madam Chair, where this goes from here. I was under the impression from the motion that this committee would be studying this issue to determine what legislation could exist ultimately for it. I don't think anybody expects it to be completed here quickly, and I don't think anybody would really want it quickly. But I certainly can tell you that this will never ever again get swept under the table, because it's here and it's here to stay. It is no mild small issue, indeed. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

There are others at the table, and I know that I've got briefs, so why don't I start with CAVEAT.

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Victims Resource Centre): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's been a while.

Mr. White made some comments about how the system really isn't geared towards victims. It is kind of ironic. I think if we go back far enough, centuries ago, we'll find that at one time the system consisted of two parties - the victim and the offender. It was the victim who initiated the prosecution and did that, whereas today we've gone the opposite way and the victim is at times nothing more than a witness for the prosecution.

I think that's really what this whole motion was about and what this whole idea of victims' rights is about. Contrary to what many believe, this is not about taking rights away from offenders. Most of the rights you see in Mr. White's list here and in appendix A of our brief really have nothing to do with the offenders' rights whatsoever. There are some I think that you could probably argue would infringe on privacy rights, but I don't think to any extent that we should have major concerns about that.

We've seen the issue of victims' rights in the last 10 years or so really come to the forefront, and that is in large part due to the work and the dedication of victims. They have allowed society the opportunity to learn from their experiences with regards to the crime as well with regards to their experiences within the system. I think that as a country we owe them a lot. I don't plan on taking up too much time today speaking, because I think it's more important that you hear from them about their experiences.

There are a couple of things I want to touch on. First, we'd like to thank Mr. White from the Reform Party for this motion. We'd like to thank the government for supporting it and seeing it here today. We hope this process continues to a path we can all agree on.

One of the most common questions those of us who work with victims of crime are asked is: what do victims want? My simple answer always is: not very much. These people are not asking that they be allowed to run the system or that they be allowed to tell the Crown what to do or what the sentence should be. They're asking to be informed of the procedures and they want to know what's going on. They want to know court dates. Mostly what they want is simply information - when you can give victims information about a plea bargain for example, explain to them why it's being done in that way and why charges can't be laid.

I think you'll find a system that works a lot better when there is cooperation between the victim and the police and the Crown. I don't think victims are asking for very much more than to be treated with the respect they deserve.

We often hear about the rehabilitation of the offender as an integral part of our justice system, a goal of our system, and it's a good goal. It's certainly the best protection we as a society can have - to change someone's behaviour. But we don't hear very much about the rehabilitation of the victim. I think we owe it to people who have been victimized by crime to, as best we can, put them back to the place they were before the offence. If they need compensation, then we owe it to give them compensation. If they need counselling, then we owe it to give them counselling.

That may not be always the area of the federal government, but one of the things the federal government can do - and it's the subject of why we're here today - is set a national standard for victims' rights across this country.

There are provinces in this country that have very good victims' rights legislation and there are provinces that have very bad victims' rights legislation. There are provinces and territories that have none.

What we're seeing, those of us who work with victims of crime every day, are victims from Manitoba, for example, who aren't being treated very well because their victims' rights legislation is very weak. That's not a situation we want to continue. We need to say that as a country, as a nation, we believe in certain things, and one of the things we believe in is that victims are entitled to these things - to be treated with respect, whether they're from Manitoba, Ontario, B.C., or Quebec. Victims have rights. It doesn't matter where they're from, what province they're from, those rights should be respected.

.1655

Mr. White made some comments about how we're often here to talk about amendments to the Criminal Code. Certainly I think we have to admit the fact that victims' rights are within the Criminal Code already. We have suggested that some of those sections... At the same time we're doing this, we don't often get to come here and talk specifically about victims' rights, so we thought that it was a good opportunity to look at some of those sections that we could improve within the Criminal Code.

We've done that, so I won't go over all of them. One of them certainly has to do with victim impact statements and giving victims the right to present oral or written statements. That's covered in Mr. White's bill. I think it probably will require an amendment to the Criminal Code. It's one that we certainly would support. There are a couple of others we've mentioned in the brief that I would ask you to look at. They don't need to be gone over in detail.

The one issue I do want to touch on is again covered in Mr. White's bill, but I think it's something that this committee has to hear. Frankly, it's the issue of section 745 and the amendments that the minister made within Bill C-45.

I can recall a couple of years ago the very first time I ever appeared before this committee, which is when I worked with Victims of Violence. It was on Bill C-41. Despite my nervousness and fear, I can recall saying that one of the things we supported wholeheartedly in that bill was the amendment to section 745 that giving victims the right to present victim impact statements.

We didn't, and don't, agree with section 745 - I don't think that's any secret - but we appreciated that amendment and we supported it. We thanked the minister for that. Unfortunately, that right was taken away earlier this year. Despite repeated requests for an explanation, we haven't had any.

If you refer to page 8 of our brief, you'll see that I've taken the liberty of going through the evidence given by the Canadian Police Association as well as that of Mrs. de Villiers, who is here with us today. I sat on the panel with Mrs. de Villiers when we testified on that bill. Both the Canadian Police Association and CAVEAT raised the concern that this bill would take away the right of victims to present victim impact statements.

You'll note that Madam Chair even made reference to the fact that it had been brought up earlier and that she undertook to ensure that it would be put before the Department of Justice when they appeared before this committee to answer questions on the bill. I went through the evidence of that meeting as well, but I couldn't find any mention of it. It's ironic that this committee is the one that has chosen to look at victims' rights when you gave it so little respect when we brought this to your attention earlier.

We come here a lot. We make a lot of amendments and recommendations to this committee. Certainly we don't expect them all to be adhered to or followed.

But consider when we bring a recommendation or a warning to an issue like that. The minister of the government has made so many comments in the past about how he supports the right of victims to present impact statements at section 745 hearings, and then he turns around in his very next bill and takes it away.

We warned this committee and they did nothing. They didn't even ask the question. We raised it at the Senate committee and they did the same thing.

It's disheartening and discouraging when we're asked to come back and now talk about victims' rights. We wonder really what consideration will be given.

I would expect that this issue is as important as the examination this committee gave to the youth justice system, so I would expect that this committee will undertake to hear from victims from across the country. This is a national issue. It's not just about victims in Ontario, but about victims in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and P.E.I. You have a responsibility, if you are really going to give this issue the consideration it deserves, to hear from those people.

I think I'll leave it at that. I'll just say I know that during the debate on this motion in the House, the minister made reference to the meeting of the provincial and federal attorneys general in 1996 such that he would bring this issue to their attention and then would bring back to this committee the results of those discussions.

We look forward to hearing from him. We look forward to his appearance before this committee. I understand that there will be some amendments discussed with regard to Bill C-45 to fix the problem or give back the right that he gave last year.

.1700

I'll turn it over to Gemma Harmison from Victims of Violence now.

Ms Gemma Harmison (Research Director, Victims of Violence): It's a scenario that's played out hundreds of times a day in Canada: a crime is committed, the police apprehend and arrest the suspect, and charges are laid against the accused.

Under this scenario, the accused's rights will be read and fully explained at the outset. These are rights such as the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to be brought before a justice of the peace without reasonable delay and within 24 hours. If this same offender enters a plea of not guilty, he/she is then afforded the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Again, if convicted and sentenced, other rights are extended to the offender. He or she has the right to participate in rehabilitative programs within an institution, the right to a certain level of education, and the right to apply for conditional release. Clearly, the offender is informed of his or her rights from the date of the initial arrest up to and including his/her eventual release from prison.

In contrast, crime victims are afforded little, if any, rights throughout the criminal justice system. Too often, there is no one to inform them of the few rights they do have, such as the right to submit a victim impact statement.

This is largely to the fact that under our current system - Steve pointed this out - crime victims are seen as mere witnesses used by the Crown to secure the case. Unfortunately, this trend is continually reinforced by players in the system who erroneously assume that if specific rights are afforded to victims, this necessarily equates with the denial of rights to the accused.

I and the other panellists today will tell you that nothing can be farther from the truth. That being said, the purpose of implementing a national victims bill of rights is not to interfere with the rights of the offenders. On the contrary, the basic and fundamental rights afforded to offenders should and must be maintained.

However, crime victims should also have rights throughout the system, for without them the system could not function. No longer should crime victims be seen as simply witnesses for the Crown, but as an integral part of the system. Consequently, rights should be afforded to them that reflect their importance in the system.

We would like to commend Mr. Randy White for the initiative he has shown in order to achieve this goal by presenting the motion to create a national victims' bill of rights. In addition, we would also like to thank those members who supported his motion to ensure that it got to this stage.

After reading through the rights contained in this motion, I see that it basically breaks down into three separate categories: the right to information, the right to participation, and the right to protection. I'm mainly going to deal with the first two, especially the right to information.

As Steve pointed out, contrary to what many believe, crime victims do not want to control the justice system. What they do want, however, is to be informed about the process. In fact, through our experience with crime victims across the country, it has become increasingly evident that their access to information is of utmost importance to them.

Those in the legal profession must remember that the vast majority of crime victims have not studied law, nor do they even enjoy a minimal understanding of the legal process. As such, crime victims are thrown into a system that is not only completely foreign to them, but it does not accommodate them either. This often leads to frustration, confusion, and a sense of betrayal.

The motion before the committee today acknowledges this frustration by affording victims the right to information throughout all levels of the process. This includes the right to be informed of their rights, to be informed of the offender's status, to be informed of any plea negotiations, and finally, to be informed why charges were not laid.

We contend that these rights are in no way extraordinary. Moreover, by ensuring that victims are guaranteed access to this information, we not only acknowledge their importance in the system, but we may also return their faith in the criminal justice system, which is severely lacking right now.

The second area is the right to participation. Again, as I stated just a few seconds ago, crime victims do not want to control the process, nor do they want absolute participation within the system.

It is our experience, however, that the vast majority of victims appreciate and take advantage of the opportunity to participate in a system through the presentation of victim impact statements at specified points in the system.

Mr. White made reference to the comment by the judge who said that victim impact statements don't make a lot of difference. I would like to see the same judge try to explain that to members of this panel and to say it as well to the organization I represent, of which Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt are the founders. Presenting a victim impact statement was the most important thing for Sharon Rosenfeldt. It's the only thing she has to grasp right now.

.1705

When Clifford Olson has his section 745 judicial review...as she so eloquently puts it, her son is not here to testify for himself. She is his mother, she is going to testify on his behalf, because she knows what he'd want to say.

That's the important point where victim impact statements are concerned. Victim impact statements really are the only means by which victims can truly articulate and express to the court the profound impact the crime has had upon them and their families.

Also with respect to victim impact statements, as Steve has already pointed out, we were quite disappointed to find out when the amendments to Bill C-41 came in, to ensure that all courts consider victim impact statements at section 745 hearings... We applauded this decision. We were very pleased - that is, until we realized that this same right was removed either inadvertently or on purpose with the passage of Bill C-45 just four months later.

This discrepancy was addressed when Bill C-45 was before the committee. Recent and repeated requests for an explanation have gone ignored by the justice minister. As the importance of such statements has already been emphasized during my presentation, we feel that only an amendment to this section of the Criminal Code would be acceptable.

I'd like to close with some of the arguments, mainly that it's primarily a provincial issue, that have been brought forward opposing a national victims' bill of rights. We don't dispute the fact that it is somewhat a provincial issue since the provinces are responsible for the enforcement of the law and the prosecution of the offence.

This argument has led many to say that a national victims' bill of rights is entirely unnecessary. We strongly oppose that view. A national victims' bill of rights would serve as a guideline or standard for the provinces to adhere to. Those who have examined in detail, as Steve said, various provincial legislation on victims' rights can hardly deny that blatant discrepancies exist from province to province. Some of the provinces and territories don't even have victims' rights legislation.

Moreover, the implementation of a national victims' bill of rights would serve to affirm the government's belief that victims and their treatment in the criminal justice system are a priority in Canada.

Priscilla de Villiers from CAVEAT will now speak.

Ms Priscilla de Villiers (President, CAVEAT): Thank you. The crime of violence can happen anywhere, any time, to anyone. Every act of violence is in some way preventable. It's the preventability and the tolerance of violence today that are the starting point of our work.

Because every act of violence has a ripple effect through our communities, it makes victims of us all. Canada is concerned with the safety of each and every Canadian, victims and potential victims. Because everyone is a potential victim, the issue of victims' rights affects us all.

Our experience shapes our views that victims are marginalized. We are not clear and unabiding in our collective call to enshrine the rights of victims within every applicable piece of legislation, within criminal justice policy framework as a whole. Only then will victims begin to be accorded the dignity and the fair and equal treatment they deserve.

While we acknowledge that the treatment of victims as incidental is not spawned from a conscious desire to subjugate them to the process, the unalterable fact is that victims suffer alone. They are conscripted bystanders in a drama in which the offender is the central character.

Victims of crime want to be canvassed when justice reform and public safety are being considered. We have invaluable experience that must contribute to the constructive change that can prevent future violence and future hardship for others.

.1710

Whether the victim should have a role in the process of justice has been discussed widely for years. In the present view of many citizens, advocates, lawyers, and police officers, the question is no longer whether the victim should participate in the process, the question is rather the extent of the participation. Canada is looking for a clear definition of that participation. We cannot state strongly enough the need for provincial and federal legislation that will validate the victim's role in the justice system and help ensure public confidence in the judicial process.

Furthermore, provincial and federal legislation should mirror each other in order to establish like standards across the country. In this era of fiscal restraint, we believe there are many fair and innovative ways to finance reform and to pay for victims' services.

As I look back on the five and a half years since I inadvertently became involved in the justice system, I wonder whether in fact life would have been any different for me now. I have to say that although there have been many amendments to legislation, both federally and provincially, although a number of provinces have now enacted victims' bills of rights, and although the victims' rights movement has attained a greater validity, I think, in the public consciousness, I would still have huge difficulty.

I'm reminded of my son when he was young. The movie Ghostbusters was popular. They said ``Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!'' I have to say that today. Who are you going to call? CAVEAT, Victims of Violence, or the Victims Resource Centre?

We still have no clear means of communication. We have nobody to apply to. People who are in total ignorance of the system do not know what level to go to. If you're lucky and you're in an area that's resourced, you may get resources. If you meet with the same brick wall that I met with - the door was slammed in my face at every level of government. That is still happening. The only thing is, because of media exposure, more people know who to call. That's the ghostbusters, self-appointed amateurs. This is not a way to run a country.

We are amateurs. We are volunteers. We learn by experience. We find ways to access certain services and certain people, and when necessary we go to the media. This creates a crisis in public confidence. This does not create a cohesive, integrated, cogent attempt to look at what is obviously a great flaw in Canadian justice. That is not to say that we in Canada do not offer enormous services for victims, because we do. But they come in different guises, under different names. We don't even realize how much is there.

I have just come back from the Hague, where I was a guest of the Dutch government. There was a young 26-year-old lawyer from Nigeria. She could have been my daughter. Her abiding concern at the time - she works for an organization rather like CAVEAT in Lagos - was to try to find a plastic surgeon who would reverse some of the third-degree burns on the face of a woman who had acid thrown in her face by her husband. We don't even think of that, because it comes under OHIP.

So when we say that we don't look after victims, we do in many ways. But this is not to say there are not vast gaps and holes in the system that lead to an enormous crisis of confidence and the continued vulnerability of the victim, in that the victim does not recover and doesn't become a functioning member. Worse, it means that the community at large looks at that, takes its lesson from that treatment, and feels its interests are not being served.

.1715

In addition, what has absolutely fascinated me is that a number of European countries have come to the decision and the very deep understanding - which is backed by a lot of money, let me tell you - from their research that taking care of the victims and studying victimology equal crime prevention. That is why they put their resources into it. We need to do that in a much more coherent and integrated fashion.

To come to this bill of rights or this proposal of Mr. White's, I'd like to thank him and the Liberal government for agreeing to put it on the table, because I think it initiated discussion. What we are asking for is a much wider focus.

We have looked at bills of rights that have been enacted recently and in the past in this country, and quite frankly they're not worth the paper they're written on. The reason is they're not enforceable. They're there as guidelines. If you're lucky, they're acted upon. If you're not lucky, there are absolutely no means you can find that will in fact enforce your right to enjoy what is written in those bills of rights.

There is an additional problem with a national bill of rights, and that is that much of this is in the administration of justice, so at best the federal government can take a guiding role to try to ensure some concurrency. That's not to say that should not happen, but let's be quite clear about the extent of where a bill of rights can go.

However, we have to accept the fact that the federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law as well as procedure and therefore must look at entrenching whatever we can within the Criminal Code and within law. Where that is not possible, we feel that in addition to the fact that federal legislation can override provincial law, we must ask the federal government to act in an intermediary role, to try to continue to keep this issue on the table and to try to bring the provinces towards some concurrency in the country.

More important, there are other questions we need to look at. We need to look at the need for an ombudsman, a prosecutorial branch, an office of review, or something at a reasonable level of government to which victims can turn when they have genuine concerns.

I can tell you from my experience that there is no one. You are extremely lucky if you can find anybody to even reply to you. You're very lucky if you get a form letter in response.

I'd like to quote to you Mr. Howard Hampton, who was the Attorney General of Ontario five and a half years ago. He told me that he doesn't make the laws, he just enforces them or administers them. Then Kim Campbell's office informed me that the federal government merely makes the laws, they don't administer them. I was told to go away and deal with that. I would suggest that nothing has changed.

What we are asking for and ask you to look at is an overriding framework. National standards must be established, but some central office that could make directed inquiries to the provinces and territories must also be established. How this would be organized, I don't know. It needs in-depth discussion.

The victims' rights movement has reached the stage at which we've achieved respect in principle, but governments have been afraid to entrench this in policy and procedure because it will mean an enormous expenditure of finances. It will need resourcing, and it will change the way justice is being carried out and increasingly is being carried out.

In other words, what we're calling for is practical, not symbolic. We have enough symbolism, now we want practice. The Europeans have long included victims in the process; they can take part if they desire.

In Germany, for example, in sexual assault cases in particular, less than 10% have taken this opportunity. To suggest that this is going to bog down our legal system is not borne out. We have other countries - France, Finland, etc. - that allow victims if they so desire to take a greater part in the process.

.1720

There's also little evidence to suggest that sentencing is any more Draconian if victims are involved. Such an option might give victims a sense of control and lessen their sense of responsibility and loss of dignity. Some autonomy would come back into their lives, which is really important because all one receives at the end is a stated conclusion. This is what I am experiencing at the moment; when we question the outcome of some type of criminal procedure or a case, what we get is a stated conclusion. We don't get any explanation.

For example, there's a huge report done on the infamous Karla Homolka plea bargain. What it says is that when we're looking at the procedures it is all done according to the procedures, but we're not told exactly why and how we arrived at those decisions, and this is of enormous importance. First of all it satisfies the need for justice, but in addition it's trying to bring about some changes.

Justice may definitely have been done in many cases, and in many victims' cases all they need is an explanation. The problem is that we don't know it's being done. We can't see how it was done, and often it's that rational explanation that could quite easily be given by some identifiable group or office who can then offer those explanation. At the moment we are doing that.

The one thing we have to ask is that we have institutional adjustment, that we are not merely given some more words that act as some sort of philosophical principle. The process must be modified. The fact is that we need to not just graft on some bits and pieces to deal with victims. We need to include victims in the process to some extent. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we go to the French model, but I think we need to look at the entire issue of where victims of crime fit into law in this country and start really discussing this in depth. We've heard impassioned pleas for the same sort of discussion elsewhere.

We, CAVEAT, together with the Victims Resource Centre, are going to be holding a victims' forum in May, which will in effect be a focus group that will begin to look at this. We're going to be looking at it and saying this is what is missing and this is what we have, and hopefully put on the table what the status quo is at the moment. Quite frankly, I implore you as a justice committee. This is something that is long overdue. As we travel in international circles we realize that despite our enormous sophistication in some areas, we're extremely backward in others, and there's absolutely no need for that at all. It would address a lot of the problems.

In summary, victims and their families are not considered ``clients'' to the justice system, and at many points in the court process their rights and needs are overlooked. The justice system at all stages must become client-centred and must remain focused on promoting community safety and serving the needs of victims. I'm using the word ``clients'' advisedly because at the moment a client refers to the offender, and I rather thought we were clients.

It's imperative that a legal framework is entrenched across Canada that would provide that victims of crime become not only a part of the process of criminal prosecution but also a part of the equally important process of self-rehabilitation. Provincial and federal legislations must mirror each other to establish country-wide standards and increased public confidence in the judicial process.

Our overall goal is to change a decades-old offender-centred adversarial justice system to include victims, families, and the community. The goal is not to exclude the offender, but to make it more inclusive, to include the voice of victims to better the way we administer justice for all. We also want to assure the rehabilitation of victims. It will ensure their return to society as productive, healthy individuals, and there is an enormous amount of research that shows this is the way to do it. Last, it is to expect responsibility and accountability every step of the way, if we're to prevent further victimization.

.1725

A comprehensive - for want of a better term - victims crime act, or victims crime policy, would only be complete with input from all the parties to whom it applies. Thank you.

The Chair: I would just like to ask for clarification on one thing. At the beginning you said it has become obvious to you that there are all sorts of services available. Can I take it from that you're calling for some way to coordinate those, and -

Ms de Villiers: Absolutely, and I mean this federally and provincially. There's a huge amount -

The Chair: I appreciate that.

Ms de Villiers: - but we don't regard that, or call it that, or look at that, or take it into account at all. I think this is something that...this enumeration almost of what we have, and then what we don't have. And I don't think we've done that. So that's really what I was getting at.

The Chair: I just lost the train there for a minute -

Ms de Villiers: Oh, I'm not surprised.

The Chairman: - and I wanted to push it on.

Next, please.

Mr. Sullivan: We'll hear from Mrs. Theresa McCuaig now, please.

Ms Theresa McCuaig (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank Mr. White, first of all, for presenting a motion for victims. Without him there would be no one there for us.

A year ago my daughter and I came here, and were quite excited when the vote was taken. We went home and partied, because we were so happy that the government had decided, yes, it was a priority, and yes, victims would get a bill of rights.

Now, you have to understand that we're new at this game, and we're pretty naive. We thought it would be done the following week. We thought this committee was going to be working on that all year and then come up with some wonderful stuff.

Much to our dismay, we find out that we're just getting around to it. Am I right? We're just getting around to it? Okay.

Mr. White has asked us to come today and explain to you what would have been helpful to us in our hour of need. I think that pretty much covers anyone who's been a victim of murder, a murdered child.

At the onset of the crime police officers...Carole was called to go to the hospital for a niece who had been injured. When she arrived there, she did not know the niece had been burnt, tortured, by a group. She did not know that her son had been taken along and kidnapped with that niece.

While at the hospital she called everywhere, thinking her son had gone to sleep at a friend's home. There was a police officer at the door. He would tell her nothing.

She was kept waiting there by herself for five hours when the police knew her son was dead. No one would tell her the truth. Finally, at 6 a.m. the police arrived - here's Carole by herself - to tell her that her son was dead.

To make matters worse, Sylvain had been taken to the Queensway Carleton Hospital. If Carole had been told, she could have gone down there, been with him immediately, and identified his body at the hospital. But no, she was put through the trauma of going to the damned morgue. The police brought her to the morgue to identify her son.

I don't know if you know, but police investigators are very busy people, and they become desensitized to murder. The way they tell you, it's like a glass of water for them. We're very sorry, something bad happened tonight, your child was murdered. Thank you, let's go to the morgue to identify him. And thank you, you can go home now.

She was left by herself in shock and in a daze to call and inform the rest of our family. Had there been a special grief officer with those policemen, who could have taken Carole in hand, who maybe could have thought, let's phone her mom first, so she won't be alone to hear this terrible news...

.1730

I'm sure that officer would have thought of that. I would have arrived there immediately to support my daughter. I would have been with her at the morgue.

That officer could have come to our home afterwards and explained to us the next step, who was being charged, who committed this crime, what a bail hearing is, what a preliminary trial is. We're not criminals, we don't know the law. We knew nothing.

I went to court the next day out of rage, because I wanted to face the killers of my grandson. I was in total surprise to be told, hey, they might make bail. Oh, what does that mean? I knew nothing. We were not told, you have a right to a lawyer, and if you cannot afford one we will give you one. We did not have that privilege. The criminals did.

We attended court at our own expense. Do you know why? We did it to find out why Sylvain was killed, who killed him, and where. The investigating officers would tell us very little because, gee whiz, it might affect the case.

We waited nine months to find out how Sylvain died. That was nine months, ladies and gentlemen.

In the meantime we lived with the press, with horrible rumours that he was sodomized, they drank his blood, he was naked, they raped him. These were horrors, night after night for nine months, until finally in a court of law the coroner read the report and explained to us what Sylvain's wounds were.

Then we had to remain in that courtroom every day to find out if there was court tomorrow. Nobody called us at home and said, excuse me, court has been cancelled tomorrow. We do not have a lawyer. The Crown is too busy to inform us. We went through that.

We sat in a courtroom and could not believe that the mother of these young offenders was allowed to go and buy them special lunches in front of us, go with the guard and bring it to them downstairs in their cell.

That was a gross insult to my family. There's no respect for victims. This was what happened. We complained bitterly at the courtroom. We asked, why is this lady allowed to reward the people who are accused of killing our child in front of our faces? We bitched until it finally stopped.

Where are our rights? We did not have a lawyer to sit in the courtroom and say, oh, a voir dire means this, a pre-sentence report means that.

These youths were in jail 14 months before the judge was finally to sentence them. We figured, good, finally we'll get them sentenced.

No, excuse me. They allowed a schoolteacher to come and say how well they're doing at the jail for 14 months. Of course, they're doing well; they're in jail. They allowed the social worker to say how well they're doing. They allowed the probation officer to say how well they're doing. Everybody and his dog got up to tell us how well they were doing. Their mothers were allowed to stand up and read a letter about their little children.

I said, fine, who speaks for Sylvain? Oh, I'm not allowed. I'm not allowed. I'm not allowed to tell the court who my child was, what our child had dreams of being. He was a person - an innocent person, by the way. We were not allowed to explain Sylvain's future, what his hopes were, what his dreams were.

They gave us a tiny piece of paper that said, explain how this crime has affected you. It's like answering in 20 lines or less, you know.

How much impact does a little piece of paper like that have against all the staff of Hay institution speaking for these youths? I was totally disgusted.

One of those schoolteachers actually took the stand and said, oh, Nick is so wonderful, my live-in partner shares all his books with him, and he's read them all.

Well, who cares? Who wants to hear that her live-in partner shares his books with prisoners?

.1735

And then she got off the stand, and kissed the mother of the accused, who was thanking her for giving such good testimony for her boy.

Hell, I wish I had been allowed that privilege, to take the stand and tell the judge who Sylvain was. I was not allowed. That isn't fair. That isn't fair.

The final insult was the ridiculous sentences they received. I'm sure you're all aware of them. I won't even go into that, because I will get emotionally upset.

Putting all this court stuff aside, let me tell you what it is to be a victim the night you're told your child is dead. I have written a letter to Mr. Harnick, because our compensation claim has been set aside.

We're called secondary victims. We don't count. Our main victim is dead. He's not here to bitch and scream, so he doesn't count.

This is what my daughter has been put through:

Dear [Mr. Harnick]:

I am so enraged I'm compelled to write to you on behalf of my daughter Carole and her son Daniel...

In October of 95 my grandson Sylvain...was kidnapped from his home along with...two cousins and a friend. Four masked men barged into their home at gun point. They were forced into the back compartment of a Jimy Van. In a 25 minute terror filled drive they beat him and taunted him telling him that ``they were going to kill him''. Sylvain cried and asked them to ``please don't kill me''. They asked him if he was ``good at pleading for his life'' and told him that they were going to kill him and put his body parts in a garbage bag. ``This is a good day to die'' they told him. Once he arrived at 33 Banner Road he was taken at gun point by these masked people. He was blind folded. They tied his hands behind his back and tied his feet. ...they took turns beating him cruelly. Sadistically, when he screamed in agony they turned up the music, gave him a short break while they tortured his female cousin...with a curling iron. Sylvain lay dying as he smelled his cousin's flesh being burned. He heard her scream and must have protested on her behalf because they turned their attention back to him.

To finish him off, they muffled his cries and gagged him. It is unclear if Sylvain choked to death as they jumped on his back or if he was strangled. Evidence showed that he suffered one hell of a beating before he died.

It breaks my heart to know that he did not pass out as others did. During his ordeal he knew he was going to die. Sylvain died in horrible pain and great shock. In my estimation it gook nine people 25 minutes to kill him. Fortunately the Police arrived to save his two cousins and...[a] friend.

The motive we are told is ``he referred to one of them ``as `Niger' while jesting on the phone''. This is unbelievable! Sylvain did not know these people...had never seen them before. They were associates of his two female cousins.

My husband, my daughter Carole and I have been attending the trial for a year and a half now...trying to make sense of it all. Sylvain was killed by a street gang called ``Ace Crew'': mostly made up of black youths under 18 years of age. They also have young adults in their gang who had just recently been released from jail for committing VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS!! They should not have been out of jail!

My daughter, her son and our families have to live with these horrific pictures in our minds. Due to Sylvain's death, his mother and brother were thrown into great financial difficulties. However The Victims Compensation has ignored her claim. She is not asking for any great amount of money from them, she is simply trying to survive. She is asking to be refunded for the unexpected expenses these crimes have forced upon her.

In explaining to you...how these expenses occurred, I'm hoping that you will review her case and help my daughter receive compensation which is her just due.

...when the kidnapping occurred one of the cousins was wearing Daniel's new winter coat... I fear the killers have it now.

That coat had cost Carole $100; it was wintertime. Sylvain's brother needed a new coat. She had to borrow $100 from her rent money to buy another coat. The house keys were left in that coat pocket. The criminals have the jacket now.

.1740

You can understand that to protect the rest of her family all the door locks had to be changed at once. That cost her $60.00. More costs incurred as threats had been made over the phone and...a recording device was purchased...

That recording device, by the way, was very helpful in the courts, because more threats were made, and those tapes were used in court. That cost her $60.

She had to borrow money to buy the last outfit for Sylvain's wake. This cost...$175.00. She borrowed someone's charge card to purchase flowers to place over his coffin... Photographs were enlarged and framed to place on his coffin as we did not know if his battered face would be acceptable for viewing. That cost her $60.00.

In the pain of her great loss, Carole went all out and bought Sylvain's urn. It cost $1,000. Newspaper notices of Sylvain's death were required. That was another $200.

She's struggling to repay these debts. This was a public debt and proper acknowledgement had to be made. Memorial cards were printed up to thank the hundreds of people who attended the wake, mass and funeral. Appreciation could not be brushed off, to a cost of $100.00. She borrowed $750.00 to pay for November's rent because her welfare and Family Allowance were immediately cut ``due to having one less dependent''. This was totally unexpected. Not even one month's grace!!

For one full year she has attended court at her own expense, some generous persons in the community have helped her with charity donations. Thank God!

Because she could no longer afford her rent, she was forced to move, it broke her heart to leave the last home she shared with her son. She would have needed time to grieve his death. As a family they were so happy while they lived in this home.

Now the incredible thing is that she was told that she doesn't qualify for ``Pain and Suffering'' nor for the ``hell'' she presently lives in. Her claim amounts to approximately $2,500.00. Is that too much to ask for? It is not her desire to ``make money'' from her son's death.

Mr. Harnick, please look now at the other side of the coin. It makes us sick to know that those who brought death into her home are living quite well in The Witness Protection Program. They receive double the money she's allotted.

- they have legal aid lawyers -

As for those who have been found guilty of these horrible barbaric crimes they reside at the William E. Hay Centre in deluxe first class accommodations. These youths are allowed to receive Family Allowance Benefits while in there. Sylvain lost his the day they killed him! They also have free legal aid at our Tax expense. My daughter cannot afford a lawyer to help her civilly sue these people for retribution. She cannot afford ``Anger Management'' classes to deal with the hate she lives with every day. The guilty ones, though, have all of this in jail. Her son does not have social workers to hold his hand and encourage him along like his brother's killers do. Where is the justice, the fairness for my daughter and her son.

I say to you, sir, had Canada's Law been tougher youths would not be in gangs. If more emphasis were put on punishment, accountability and responsibility rather than rehabilitation, death would not have come to her door. I hold our Government responsible for Sylvain's death.

.1745

Have you ever thought of Sylvain? He is not here to apply for compensation for his pain and sufferings. Who will read him his rights? No one! Canada owes him his life, sir, Sylvain will never be able to collect.

The final insult for us will be to see his killers get away with murder. Their defense lawyers will make sure of that. A little conduct problem `gets them off the hook'. An unhappy childhood gives them the right to vent their frustration on an unsuspecting society. Thus murder is quickly forgiven: [young offenders] are ``gold-plated'' all around. Who, though, will compensate Sylvain's mother and brother? Our country spends thousands of dollars for criminals who are in jail to attend their family's funeral.

Why then must victims of these criminals beg for financial compensation to bury their child properly with dignity and love? Who will give my daughter some ``rights'', who will ``rehabilitate us''? Could we ever live in peace again? Who will remove our feelings of hate, disgust, pain and despair we are now left with? No one!!!

I sincerely hope you can assist my daughter in her plea. In a year and a half we've experienced a lot of things, and I take notes all the time. I've come to the conclusion that what would have really helped us and any other victims of murder would have been if a resource centre had been established for the victims of murder.

That centre should employ specialized, sensitive personnel to deal with grief management. It should provide free legal aid to victims throughout the trial, and, where possible, to sue the convicted persons for retribution. This centre should assist the family with immediate financial and unforeseen funeral expenses. This centre should provide a meeting place staffed with professional grief counsellors, where victims of murder can meet and heal one another. This centre should allow victims to volunteer their services to the ongoing operation of the centre. It should provide sensitive, intelligent staff to speed up victim's compensation claims. You wait two years to be told you are a secondary victim and you don't qualify.

This centre should have a resource person to direct victims to the proper resources they desperately need, such as emergency housing, welfare, widow's pensions, orphan's pensions, etc. A special police officer who specializes in grief crisis should accompany investigators when announcing a death by murder. This officer should remain with the family at the morgue and later remain to support and help the victims, informing them of all upcoming police procedures. This same officer should honestly explain to the victim's family all of the circumstances surrounding the victim's death.

We are allowed to know that. This should be our right. Why is it kept a secret from us how our child was murdered? It's our child. We shouldn't have to wait nine months in a courtroom. It's ridiculous.

Murder victims' identities should not be revealed to the press until notification of the family takes place. A murder victim's relatives, such as mother, father, or spouse, who wish to attend court procedures for the accused should be allowed to receive victims' unemployment benefits for the duration of the trial.

I'm going to throw something at you right now. If you go home tonight and your child is murdered - your son or your daughter or your brother - you will be very angry and you will want to see who did this to your child. You will want to be at court tomorrow morning. You might even want to be at court for the rest of the trial to make sure that person is punished.

.1750

I'm sorry, you can't go because unemployment insurance says you cannot collect, you must be available for work. You might get welfare to attend court, and you're going to have to ask your employer for a year off to go to court. That's not fair.

If your child is dead, there should be a place where you are allowed victim's unemployment insurance for the duration of that trial. That should be your right. Families of murder victims should be allowed a victim's leave of absence from their employers without fear of losing their job. It goes on and on. I'm going to leave it with you to study it.

I can only assure you that had these rights been in place when Sylvain died, we would have known there was a place to go to for immediate help. We would have felt supported by our government. We wouldn't be living in such anger at the moment and we wouldn't feel so cheated. We wouldn't keep asking why the prisoner is allowed this and that and we are allowed nothing. It has to change, because people like us are coming out of the closet. We're not taking it any more. We're not going to go home and hide in our grief and be quiet; we're not going to stay in the closet, no. Every day they're coming out of the closet more. I leave you with that.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Sullivan: Ms Mahaffy.

Ms Debbie Mahaffy (ACTION for Victims): Thank you. What this family has experienced is an outrage...that we allow this to happen in Canada. I would like to apologize. I think someone from the government should apologize to every single victim of violence. When this kind of treatment happens...and it happens a hell of a lot and it's been happening for a long time. And it will continue to happen until this government - or any government - gets its act together and realizes that there is another part of a murder, not just the accused, the convicted; there are people and families of that loved one.

I'd like to thank Randy very much for bringing this to light. We could fill up this whole Parliament building with victims who have had such a wretched experience as this family has had. I would like to outline the way it should have been done.

I was lucky. From the death notification, from the knock on the motel door, where it happened to be two and half hours from home, the officers came from ``my'' town - not from the town I was in but from ``my'' town. They drove there to get my husband and me, and they drove us home. Those same officers brought with them a victim's services lady. That is with the Halton region, but it is obviously absent here in Ottawa, which is sad. It is absent in many regions in Ontario, in many regions across the country, and that is pathetic.

The little victim assistance lady who came that night stayed after the police left. We arrived home at about 2 a.m. and that lady stayed until she was assured that my mother would not have a heart attack, until she was probably assured that I wasn't going to do anything too foolish. She went to my family doctor for medication. The police left their cards; they assured us what time they'd be back in the morning. My husband had cards in his hand should he want to call at any time during what was left of the evening. I remember the victim assistance lady left at about 5 a.m. We had arrived home at about 2 a.m. We had her for about three and a half hours at our house. The officers left at about 4 a.m.

In the morning we knew that the press and media would be at our house. There would also be a press conference at the police station, but they were at our house long before we'd predicted. And that is fine, because as Priscilla mentioned, the ghostbusters might do a lot of this stuff, but it's victims and victims' groups and victims' families that the media themselves...some have been trashed and some have talked too soon, unfortunately before the families are notified.

.1755

But in Burlington we did have a case that I credit the media with. At least without the media we would not have found a kidnapped baby, a newborn, from a hospital. There are good and there are bad experiences, and it is very, very unfortunate, the way you were treated.

Again, I really think the way we were treated could be a model of how it should be done, excepting, of course, the judge's decision regarding the playing of the videotapes in court and providing a reading of the transcript at the end of each day to the press and media.

I do not think we were manipulated by anyone but both defence counsel regarding the use of the videotapes and the lack of respect in regards to our crying in court. Defence counsel claimed and objected to our crying and carrying on as ``an attempt to influence the jury''. That was after only one hour of the Crown's opening statement. He wanted us to sit somewhere else in the courtroom. We managed to stay where we were. We were at a 180-degree angle to the jury.

The defence refused to put his monitor down into his desk, as all the others did in the courtroom, except defence, when Leslie and Kristen's bodies were found and showing. This refusal came after many requests from other crown attorneys, the police, and other court officials, but the judge did not request him to do so. He did not.

There should be available for every victim's family in every police jurisdiction and court across Canada, number one, the victim services personnel that I first spoke of, the victim assistance program, under the auspices of the police.

Number two, the police who did communicate to us on a regular basis - if they didn't call we called them, and we felt comfortable doing so.

The crown attorneys did communicate with us, and I think my opening remark to our crown attorneys was, ``Hi, I don't care if you represent the state; I am a person and I need to know what's going on, and we have to communicate.'' The crown attorney did communicate and told us as much as possible, and told us about the plea bargain - not that we had any real say in it, but we knew sort of what was going on.

But the moment the police and crown attorney told us about the existence of the tapes and that the crown would have to play them, we knew that we needed a lawyer, for our interests could not be protected by the Crown. Leslie's and Kristen's interests could not be protected by the Crown.

At the same time the CBC wanted to televise the proceedings. I think perhaps TV should come into courts at the appellate level, and definitely for the charge to the jury, but at no other time. All the media lawyers demanded an open court to see and hear everything on the videos.

Impact statements were welcomed by our crown attorneys. My son had one glitch in his. The Crown took exception to the fact that my son said ``Darwin must have wondered what you ever evolved from on the evolutionary scale.'' They thought that was a bit harsh. They wanted me to change it, and I said no way. If you won't let my son call him pond scum, then we're sticking with this.

Still they argued, what grade was he in? Had he studied Darwin's theory? I said no, but he knows Darwin's theory and he knows the other theory too. I wasn't going to change.

So we got lucky. I guess I was at the point of having a tantrum, I don't know what, but anyway, I submitted a video impact statement. The video impact statement and my son's impact statement were to illustrate the true loss our family would have to endure. This was the person who was killed - not the 14-year-old girl that in a moment we only heard from the defence... This was what we would have to live without, in picture, with every relationship in our family, to the black frame when the very last picture of each relationship ended.

.1800

My son read his statements to illustrate what losing his sister meant to him.

Victims should be guaranteed a crime scene clean-up. I have talked to two parents in the past three months who had to clean up their child's blood in their homes. I have seen police sweeping broken glass off a highway, but no one came in and cleaned these homes. One family even had to carpet the room because the blood couldn't come out of the cracks in the floor boards.

Notification of and appointment for Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: we were lucky again. It was either the funeral home or the police that handed the form to us. We got the form. My husband had enough sense to fill it out, and all we had to do was basically file it. But I certainly do agree it is the most horrible thing to decide what the heck is pain and suffering if what you have gone through is not pain and suffering. Apparently my husband was not awarded one penny for pain and suffering. Is that because he didn't have any pain and suffering? No. It's because apparently he didn't see a psychiatrist or wasn't checked into a hospital - that's the closest I can come to that.

But again, what happens? Your unemployment insurance... You lose your job, you have no income, you lose your home - as you say, you lose the very home that you shared last, that is precious. That is gone as well.

But what about good old disability? That depends on your contributions to Canada Pension. As you're raising a family of children, you don't always contribute that much to Canada Pension. The disability pension I am now on is based on my contributions in and around raising two children.

Application for parole: there's apparently a nice 800 number we can now dial to find out some information in Ontario. I'm not too sure just how active that is. Mr. Harnick has put out a little booklet on that.

Also, the information regarding any movement of the convicted: we have luckily already received notification regarding parole of Homolka and we have received notification regarding any movement. But it is just by chance we lucked into this. When we went to court, we lucked into a fantastic court system that had a victim witness coordinator who was there to liaise between us and the Crown.

Our questions - and I agree, the Crown is very caught up in... If any one of the crown attorneys is making a presentation, he has his job and he has his mind on his job. We didn't know what a voir dire was either, but we had someone to ask, and the Crown explained.

Before we went into that court each day, we knew what was going to be discussed on a thumb scale, and that was enough to know that either we were going to be talking about cement or we were going to be talking about a churchyard. And that helped for a second, when I realized that perhaps I would be off the hook. Then I realized Mrs. French would be enduring hell, and the girls became synonymous as one.

When someone steals your daughter or your son, or any family member or friend, they ask you not to be angry, not be vindictive, not to be revengeful, not to be - you used a wonderful word there, after angry -

Ms McCuaig: Disgusted?

Ms Mahaffy: Well, that too.

However, if someone steals your car, are you not a little angry? Are you not revengeful and do you not want it back? Do you not want restitution for your car? Oh, I know, it was ``unforgiving''. We're asked as well not to be unforgiving. Forgiving we're asked to be, not unforgiving.

It is a bit of a conundrum as to who is going to administer and look after our victims' rights, if indeed we ever can get them into a form. It is a conundrum. As Priscilla mentioned, it could be the prosecution branch, perhaps. Perhaps it could be a victim's advocate. Perhaps we could call it an ombudsman. Whatever we call it, there has to be someone there to enforce these rights for victims, because as we know, the victims and the victims' groups and the media in some cases and the general public are doing a far better job for victims than the current government or any government has ever done.

.1805

When the Crown won't appeal a verdict, when the Crown won't plea bargain, who can we turn to? Victims' rights is now an election issue, and it should have been a long time ago.

As Priscilla mentioned also, there is a ripple effect when violence or murder is committed in the community. To family members, the death of a loved one starts as a ripple, but as the ripple effect moves away from the murder victim, it reaches a tidal wave of devastation to the members of the family and to friends.

It's time to rehabilitate the victim and their family first, before the psychopaths and pedophiles and any other criminals. I'm sick and tired of having rehabilitation for everyone else. I need rehabilitation too, and I'm not the strangest kid on the block.

It's time to remove the red tape and all the political reasons that are out there for not dealing with this victims' bill of rights. People say, well, it's provincial, or, well, it's federal. Let's remove that, because the longer we sit around, we see more yellow police tape: Do not cross.

On August 18, 1992, Mr. Stan Keyes, Liberal at the time and still Liberal as far as I know, stated, ``The scales of justice have been tipped in favour of the criminal. It's time the punishment fit the crime.'' That was in reference to Bill C-330. The bill also asked for sentences to be served consecutively instead of concurrently, as they now are. Consecutive sentencing acknowledges, validates, and respects each and every victim, each and every offence.

A right for victims should be justice. Justice for victims is the truth. The truth brings peace to victims. However, as a regional crown, James Treleaven stated at a CAVEAT conference in September 1995, ``Let's not pretend the justice system is a search for the truth''. That says it all.

Victims should be granted a national memorial day for victims of violence to be honoured across the country, not just in individual towns and individual cities across the country, but also here on Parliament Hill, as we do and should do every November 11 for the war veterans. Each murder victim has fought a personal war themselves, and they have lost, just as our soldiers, sailors, and air force have done.

We have a palladium here on the Hill, and so there should be, for our police officers who have died in the line of duty. There is a prisoners' week. Actually, they've changed it now to Restorative Justice Week. I guess it sounds a little bit better. It still means the same. I don't know what they do for a whole week, but it's something. It's more than what victims have.

An annual memorial service is a celebration that is held... We do this in Burlington. Ontario has done it, Calgary has, and Alberta has that I know of. This day signifies the experience of victimization suffered by all families and all friends of a murder victim. In Ontario it has been proclaimed June 11, but nationally we can work with any date. We can see support, and support should be given nationally to networking between families who have suffered the same grief.

I think that's all I'm going to say before I get really angry and really say something out of line. Thank you.

The Chair: Randy, can you put your other hat on now as a member of the committee? Do you have some questions?

Mr. Randy White: Do I want to ask myself some questions? I've asked myself lots of questions, Madam Chairman. I think you should by now have a very clear picture.

I think the individuals who gave you presentations each gave you a different point of view, but in many cases they are very similar. Regardless of the type of approach, we're still into issues like victims' need to know what their rights are - as basic as that today.

.1810

The question I would have for the committee is just exactly now what happens. The motion was to get this issue into a committee and start working on legislation, and I think these folks here and tens of thousands like them across the country are not going to go away, so we might as well get at it and start.

The Chair: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just concerned that Mr. Epp has indicated that he wanted to ask a question. There may be some specific questions for specific presenters, so let's do this so that we're not off track. I keep in mind that we've already brought them here at least on one other occasion and votes interfered with respect to another bill, and I don't want to have to get off track on that today.

Mr. Epp, you're not normally a member of our committee, and our normal practice is to open with ten minutes for each party. I don't know if you need that long.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): My question is really more of a statement.

The Chair: Go ahead, and I'll put my timer on. I'm recognizing you.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was sitting in my office working and watching the proceedings in the House of Commons on television and then I remembered that the justice committee was hearing. We have an audio input into our offices and I was deeply touched by what I was hearing. So I thought I should come over here and just say to you people I admire your courage.

We've also been touched by this thing, but indirectly, so that's why I have this empathy. I really appreciate the fact that you're willing once again to relive your experiences in order to try to educate us on the Hill here about things we need to do. I'm very grateful for that.

I would also like to ask you - and I don't know which of you wants to answer this - if you view the victims' rights as they're being proposed. I don't know whether this has been asked of you before. Do you think it is a start? Is it sufficient? Are there changes to it that any of you would consider we should add to it as well? I don't know how much input you've had into it with Randy and with others.

Ms de Villiers: I would like to very strongly repeat that I appreciate enormously the effort Randy has put into it, but that unfortunately, given the very practical realities in Canada of the way justice is administered, and the fact that the divisions between the federal government and the provincial government are very great and have been used as an excuse in many cases not to afford some of these rights, and the fact that the federal government, in many cases, cannot enforce a number of these rights, I would like to ask that as a philosophical principle, this should be looked at. But you go further. Go from the symbolic and the philosophical to the practical as well.

This has been our experience. It's a starting point, and it's a very valuable one, that a bill of rights per se will not give us what we are asking for, and that is practical interaction and practical participation and real rights within our justice system. It is a very complex issue, and so as a symbolic and philosophical...absolutely, and there could be more input there, but please go beyond that. I really feel that the time has come.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm thinking that if this were adopted, it would probably help to ameliorate the pain and the agony at the time, but certainly it would not come anywhere close to solving the problem. I can't imagine the personal pain that each of you have gone through in this experience - as a father and as a grandfather. I have this very practical question. How do you actually implement this thing in a way that is meaningful? It seems to me that each family has different needs at such a time, and really you have to have resources that are dedicated to you specifically at that time over a period of time. Am I correct in that?

.1815

Mr. Randy White: The eight items here were proposed as a basis, a fundamental core set of issues that must be dealt with. Under no circumstance - and I agree with Priscilla - do we want a government, no matter what government it is, to write these as words and then walk away. That's worse than doing nothing. I think it's overwhelming that people are saying, yes, I wish I'd had that. Most of it, as Steve said, is information. The fact is that rhetoric is no longer acceptable, and therein lies the problem. I think everybody, including Priscilla, is saying that none of this is any good unless we're going to get something substantive, something tangible, and something you can actually hang your hat on.

Ms de Villiers: I would like to say something from the practical point of view. What I was doing in the Hague for a week or so was taking part in an exercise that's been going on for about a year, and that is developing both a manual, which is a sort of wish list for governments but also a practical handbook for practitioners who work with victims, who provide victim services, police, etc. This is meant on an international scale. If you think it's difficult to get agreement with provinces and territories and the federal government, try it internationally.

What that did is I've been working away at coming across with a handbook that says the police should do XYZ and XYZ when dealing with victims of crime. So by getting agreement, hopefully, when it's presented to the United Nations, it will then go in as a standard by which many countries in the world hopefully will then look at their victim services. From my point of view, from a practical point of view, it's that type of thing that we're asking the federal government to take the lead in so that they will be very... You're absolutely right. Information that you need is specific to cases, but there are certain very clear areas where you can go and where that information should come from. Very often it's not there.

I think there are two different issues here. What I did say earlier to the committee was that Victims Resource Centre and CAVEAT are organizing a forum in May, which will be a very small one, that will be a focus group to actually start looking at this issue so that we can start to focus on what we have and what we don't have. I don't know if that helps you.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'll conclude if I may, Madam Chairman. I think we have from you people a very clear green light to move ahead on this, and I appreciate that. I just want to say that I hope you carry on with your project, with your fight to do this, because like it or not, there will be more victims in this country. We need to learn to deal with our victims, the victims' families, in a way that is so much better than it has been, very obviously.

Thank you so much. Thanks, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Am I to understand, then, that you're compiling some information on this as well? Are you doing an inventory of what's available?

Mr. Sullivan: We're trying. We've set some specific questions we'd like to see that have been a concern to us for a long time, very specific questions that we hope to have a panel of experts come together and discuss and hopefully from that bring forth a report of recommendations.

The Chair: I assume you'll share that with us.

.1820

Mr. Sullivan: Actually, Madam Chair, you've been invited to attend.

The Chair: Have I? What's the date?

Mr. Sullivan: May 14, 15, and 16.

Mr. Randy White: Madam Chair, I must say these groups and these folks are doing good work, but they're not here to tell you they're doing good work. They're here to tell you this government has to do some good work. Let's make sure of what we're saying here.

The Chair: If there's information available, Mr. White, we want it.

Mr. Randy White: I just want to be sure we all understand each other.

The Chair: I doubt that comment was necessary.

Mr. Randy White: I don't think so.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): As I start, let me touch on two things. I came from Hungary and I'm quite familiar with the constitution of the Soviet Union. They probably had one of the best constitutions on paper and it was totally useless. That's one point.

The other point is that I worked full-time in community justice from 1976 till 1993. I'm not a lawyer, so I certainly looked at it from a slightly different perspective. I don't look at the legal system as the justice system. Maybe someday we'll get to a justice system, but when you talk about the legal system and you talk about who the clients are, I think to a large extent the judicial system is probably one of the best at determining if a person is guilty or not guilty.

In terms of the victims and offenders and treating them appropriately at the sentencing stage or prior to the sentencing stage, they're not very good at it. The police are involved in too many things they probably shouldn't be involved in, in terms of what they consider as a crime. It probably shouldn't be a crime. It's safe to say they're overworked and they're rushing around. There are too few of them to do all the things they're doing. The same thing is to be said about the crown attorneys and the judges.

There's a whole industry in the judicial system. They work on resolving the big question of whether the person is guilty or innocent. When somebody goes into the court, it's not the community or the victim versus the offender; it's Regina versus the offender. It's almost as though it's been removed over to England or Queen's Park or Ottawa. So you have a real issue of trying to bring it to the community level.

Mention was made of victim-offender reconciliation. I did a fair number of victim-offender reconciliations. What I found was that it was very therapeutic for the victim to be involved in it. First, they get to recognize that the person who broke into their house is the snotty-nosed kid next door in most cases, and not somebody who might be their worst nightmare. After initial unloading onto the young person, which was much deserved because they didn't realize they could possibly cause that much grief to anybody, in many cases you have the victims take an interest in the individual and ask why the hell they have done this.

It's a restorative kind of balance. Holding the individual responsible at that point and trying to make restitution is a good thing. Not only does the victim get restitution, but the offender did something to restore the situation prior to the involvement.

When this debate went on in the House, I sort of grieved for what was happening to the programs that were established in my community. Many of them were things such as victim programs. Mrs. Mahaffy, you mentioned that you had the benefit of victim services. We had that in the region of Waterloo, but over the years that has been cut back. The victim service centres have been cut back. I deeply believe it is the responsibility of government to provide that.

When Mr. White talks about national standards for victims, I agree wholeheartedly, just as I agree that there should be a national standard for health care enforced. There should be a national standard for welfare enforced. I look at the shelters for battered women, second-stage housing for battered women, which have been cut back or eliminated totally. There is little support for rape distress centres. Victim services have been cut back. Victim programs for people who suffered sexual abuse many years ago and are coming to deal with it, programs that are run for peanuts by community justice initiatives, are cut back. Counselling services for anybody on social assistance who can afford counselling are cut back.

.1825

Damn it, Ontario was mentioned as a model in terms of coming forward with victims' rights. I would rather have the services there than have somebody get up there and spout about victims' rights. I said that when this debate went on and I said that to you, Mr. White. We as a House should unite and tell the Province of Ontario that it's nice to have the rhetoric, but damn it, put the money into those programs.

I can take you through my community. I feel passionate about it. I have started Community Safety and Crime Prevention in my region. While this program has been getting together for the last three years, I have worked with many people for peanuts. All the community volunteering that went into it is being destroyed and dismantled by the provincial government. I totally agree we should have a national standard and I hope all members of the House can get together on it.

Certainly the human truth should not have happened, and it need not have happened. What many communities in this province are going through should not have happened. If there is a victims' rights group in B.C., I dare say there are a hell of a lot more resources supporting it compared to what there would be in the province of Ontario. In Ontario, all the services I have seen have been cut back or eliminated. The whole issue of community justice and having the community take that responsibility has disappeared.

Two of the people who work in my community are Jim and Sherilee Wideman. Jim Wideman used to be a business person. One of his sons was killed in that accident where the kids were out on a hay ride and the car came by with some drunken young offenders. His son was killed. The shock of what happened was just incredible to him, as well as to a number of other people who thought they were safe with a church group. How much safer can you be than going on a hay ride with a church group on a Friday evening?

Jim and his wife Sherilee have dedicated themselves. He is now the executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He has been working on that, and he's also the chair of the school board in the region, plus he's a good friend of mine. I have seen the pain.

We have seen that pain in the community as well as pain suffered by victims and other citizens concerned with crime against children. They have started saying we need some more realistic sentencing for people accused of sexual abuse. I have seen them becoming involved in the community justice group. I have seen them all of a sudden say we can just be concerned about victims. Many times the offenders we are dealing with now were victims before they were offenders, and nobody dealt with them at that time. There's a whole circle to it that has to be dealt with.

Yes, I very much support some realistic standards for governments at all levels in terms of dealing with victims. If the resources aren't there to make them meaningful, then it won't be worth a whole lot.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Randy White: I have two comments to that, Madam Chairman. I didn't want to lose the point.

The Chair: You have a double role here, and I want to make sure we get all the questions out that are out. I don't mind what happens after that.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't have any questions. I just want to make the point that I agree and the House has agreed with the motion. This is something we need to undertake. From my experience in dealing with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I don't want there to be any false expectations. It is not going to be anything but a very difficult process to try to coordinate all the levels of government we have to work with, because of the nature of our Constitution and the jurisdictional issues we're going to have to deal with. Certainly we agree it's a process we need to go through.

.1830

I just wanted to put in that note of caution: it is going to be very difficult to try to coordinate all these services and different levels of jurisdiction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. White, last words.

Mr. Randy White: I have just three comments.

I indicated from the outset that this certainly is a cross-party lines issue. We don't disagree. I think the separatists voted against this, but in fact Liberal and Reform don't disagree, so we've already achieved that.

I think it was Steve, or it might have been Priscilla, who mentioned that we don't want to get caught up in this federal-provincial thing. One says it's your problem, and the other one says it's your problem; you do the administration, you set the laws - and back and forth. We don't want to get caught up either in that, well, the federal government cut back money so the provincial government cut back, and they shouldn't have cut back there.

The Chair: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Randy White: We have to cut through that.

To anybody who says it's a difficult process, I agree, but it's nothing near the difficulty these folks have gone thorough already. To try to establish an organization, for instance CAVEAT, and to try to work through that with volunteers and do all the things you can, to this point has been extremely difficult. I don't think these people lack the motivation or the initiative to keep going. They've already been through hell and back on these kinds of issues.

The Chair: Thanks.

This was the first foray for us; it's not the last. We're going to rise now.

I just want to advise the committee that tomorrow we do clause-by-clause on Bill C-46. We should probably have a chat as well.

Randy, I don't know if you're going to be here tomorrow or what, but we should probably have people instructed and have a chat on where we're going to go with this one.

There have been some suggestions that frankly I'd like to mull over. I'd like to get my mind around some of this tonight, such as how expansive the hearings should be and where we should go. I think we can work together on that, because we have to figure it out.

Even, Randy, if you and I could have a few words before we go, that would be helpful, so I could get some sense of that.

Thanks a lot. You all look really tired now. We'll rise until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.

Return to Committee Home Page