John Reynolds

[Business Of The House, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, since we are going on with a long Thursday question, I would ask the government House leader what happened to the young offenders bill which has been touted by the government. Millions of dollars have been spent on advertising and it does not seem to be on the government agenda any more.

[Nisga'A Treaty, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty is a $490 million land claim treaty that gives significant self-government powers and 2,000 square kilometres of land to 5,500 Nisga'a band members.

There are some frightening and constitutionally questionable aspects to this treaty. Until now, governmental power in Canada was divided among federal and provincial governments. The Nisga'a creates a new level of government, the Nisga'a national government.

The new government will have power to tax without representation by virtue of its race based premise and to entrench inequality for aboriginal women. The treaty will allow the Nisga'a to pass laws over timber, water, fisheries and wildlife.

The NDP government in British Columbia rammed this treaty through the legislature with closure. Now the federal government is looking for a rubber stamp.

Today the Reform Party urges the government to refer this treaty to the supreme court to determine, before we proceed down the road of creating mini states in British Columbia, if the treaty constitutes an amendment to our constitution and if individual rights are usurped by this national government.

If the treaty is on solid ground, the federal government should welcome this determination.

[Apec Summit, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the student clamp down at the 1997 APEC summit pleased now deposed Indonesian dictator Suharto so much that his ambassador wrote to the Prime Minister thanking him for his personal efforts in ensuring his safety. I guess a little pepper-spray goes a long way in diplomatic circles.

For a PMO that has until now denied any involvement in the security forces at APEC, was getting a pat on the back from a deposed and disgraced dictator worth trampling on the rights of Canadians?

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

They are sitting over there yapping away. A little yapping here and a little yapping there, but it makes no sense.

This bill could have passed. We could have supported it, we could have voted for it and it would have been part of the present bill because we are not going to see Bill C-68 for a long time.

They can talk all they want, but what they have done is killed democracy and killed this member's bill. That is what a hoist means. If they do not understand that, they should sit with you, Mr. Speaker, to get a few lessons on parliamentary democracy. If they have been conned by their own House leader that this will not kill the bill, they do not understand how parliament works.

I say shame on the government for hurting democracy tonight and for killing this private member's bill.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

The parliamentary secretary said that it has not been killed. She should walk down to the clerk's table and find out a little about parliament because this bill is dead. That is what they did on the other side. The Liberals have killed this young offenders bill which would have benefited this country. It is a shame.

What is really a shame about it is that we have the government interfering in Private Members' Business. This was not done by a backbencher; it was done by the government with a plan to kill this private member's bill.

The public may not understand what the bill addresses. It calls for parents and guardians of young offenders to be held accountable when they fail to discharge their responsibilities. It could have been law in this country by May 26, when we return, but the government has killed the bill. It has killed this great idea, which even it admits is a great idea because it included it in its legislation.

Liberals might say that we should just wait until their legislation comes along, but we know that the government does not intend to pass Bill C-68 in this session. The House is going to prorogue before the bill ever sees the light of day because the government has taken so much heat over the fact that certain things are not in the bill that should be there. It will let the bill drag on. The government House leader has not brought the bill back into the House for debate. We have had 20 minutes here, an hour there, two hours there, but there is no government behind Bill C-68.

We do not even see it on our agenda of “must haves” before we break for the summer. That is a shame. It is an absolute shame that the government spent a couple of million bucks on PR for the bill to try to make the minister and the government look good and it is not even on the agenda as an item to be considered before we leave for summer holidays. The government could have had the bill of the member for Surrey North which would have made that part of it law before the summer, but it has not done that.

Democracy is really great on the other side. The Liberals have killed this bill. They have killed this young offenders section. They just do not want to see a member from this side getting credit for doing it. They will pay the price for that. What is even worse is that young people will pay the price. They will pay the price because this was a good bill. Even the Minister of Justice said that when she brought down her legislation. She said that this was incorporated in Bill C-68 because it was a good idea, but then they killed this bill today. They are going to kill Bill C-68.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was going to be a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill and to talk about the great things that my colleague from Surrey North has done in this House, and about how even the government has inserted what the member has in this bill into its legislation.

We heard the government whip say “Let's defer the vote”, and we all thought that was fine, but in the middle of the debate the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London moved a motion to hoist the bill. The people who are listening probably do not understand that the motion to hoist will delay the bill for six months in order that we can have a look at it. Maybe they think that is a good idea. However, in parliamentary terms the government has killed this private member's bill. The bill is dead.

[Impaired Driving, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about a leaked report. This is about drunk driving.

The minister knows her staff has told people. They have been involved in this. We did not leak the report. We do not leak reports like the other side.

This is about drunk driving. The government has delayed it since the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley brought it into the House in 1995.

Will the minister commit to bringing a bill to the House which we will support and pass in one day when we come back after our recess next week?

[Impaired Driving, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister. She said three times that she anticipates the report, that she awaits the report.

When we were asking some reporters this morning about where they got the leaked report, they said they received it from the minister's office. It was a senior Southam reporter who said it was leaked from the minister's office.

The minister's staff has seen the report. They know we have a unanimous report of the committee. All parties have agreed. We do not totally agree with everything that is in the report but we said we would compromise. A half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. We want the report to be in the House.

Will the minister commit to tabling a bill, when we come back after our recess next week, which we will pass quickly in the House?

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Motion No. 265 which calls for a legislative committee to be established to prepare and bring in a bill in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b) to abolish the legal defence of provocation contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code.

The member for Yukon has been forthright in stating the genesis of this motion. I can understand how she may be motivated by the tragic case of Susan Klassen who died at the hands of her husband.

On the surface it seems easy to remedy a situation of this nature. It is quite human to perhaps strike out and fix it in one fell swoop. I regret I cannot subscribe to one fell swoop. I cannot support the outright abolition of section 232 of the Criminal Code.

As I understand it, section 232 has remained virtually unchanged since 1892 which to some may say it is time for a change. On the other hand everything old is not necessarily out of date. Also as I understand it, in criminal justice judges and the courts apply certain flexibilities and interpretation which help to keep the Criminal Code a fluid document.

As my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has so cogently pointed out during earlier debate, the application of the defence of provocation has not remained static. He went on to say that many cases before the courts set legal precedents to determine the sufficiency of evidence to raise the defence, the nature of the object of test of the term ordinary person, the instructions or charges of the jury, the applications of this defence to attempted murder, the definition of self-induced provocation, and constitutional considerations. In short, section 232 has been in constant scrutiny, interpretation and change. This is good. It says the law is not static.

Previous speakers to the bill have spoken about the complexity and controversial nature of section 232, but that in itself should not lead to abolition. As the section reads, culpable homicide may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. For the provocation defence to be successful, there must be a wrongful act or insult. The act must be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of self-control. The accused had to act in the heat of passion. There had to be no time for the accused to cool down.

This seems to be quite a comprehensive set of guidelines and despite the complexity there seems to be enough caveats to ensure it passes some sort of litmus test for its use.

We must remember that if the defence is successful it does not mean the accused walks. In fact he or she can still be convicted of manslaughter and face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Nevertheless certain cases have given rise to concerns regarding this section and it is currently under review by the justice department.

In June 1998 a discussion paper on provocation was released by justice. It was to form the basis of a public consultation. At this point submissions by groups and individuals are still being reviewed.

This discussion paper asks the public for input on nine options with respect to the defence of provocation. Allow me to identify these options: to abolish the defence of provocation, to reform the defence of provocation by removing the phrase in the heat of passion, to replace the term wrongful act with unlawful act, to remove the ordinary person test to reflect the mix subjective-objective test, to reform the defence of expanding the suddenness requirement, to reform the defence so that it is not available in a case of a spousal homicide, to reform the defence so that it is not available in a case where the victim asserts his or her charter rights, to reform the defence to limit it to situations where excessive force was used in self-defence, and to leave the Criminal Code provisions on the provocation defence exactly as they are.

I ask whether these options as a result of input gathered by the department have been reviewed sufficiently as the causes to abolish section 232. I think not and I think the abolition option is a bit premature.

Unfortunately the issue of provocation defence has taken on a singular gender oriented, one dimensional focus. As was stated in the government's discussion paper, the defence of provocation might be useful for women in situations of domestic violence who kill in self-defence but with excessive force in response to physical or verbal abuse. It seems to me it would be dangerously presumptuous to expunge section 232 before we at least review the options in a lot more detail.

I must agree with the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, formerly a crown prosecutor, who cautioned against taking a single case in isolation and using it as a motivation to entirely change the law. If this were the only mitigating factor to amend a section of the Criminal Code, we could find one case for each section of the Criminal Code and have a Criminal Code in perpetual motion and change. This seems a bit frivolous.

The Department of Justice is now reviewing the options which in the final analysis we hope will lead to a consensus of the view of interested parties. Perhaps we should conclude that review and see what the justice department has to say before we go headlong into a complex area of law with interconnecting elements in other sections of the Criminal Code.

I am not fighting a change by opposing Motion No. 265. I am opposing precipitous change, premature change, and change to suit just one case. This is not how our Criminal Code evolved. I do not support incomplete review. Let us face it. Too often politicians are accused of acting before we think.

I am not diminishing the passion and legitimate concern that the member for Yukon brings to this issue. It is a commendable initiative, but I am sensitive to quantum change before the department review is complete.

There is a lot of evidence that section 232 continues to serve the criminal justice system with merit in rendering justice. I suspect we could all pick one case where we feel some section of the code has been negligent or deficient. There is a process in our criminal justice system, by way of the courts, to deal with these situations. I do not feel that we are at a point where we should abandon section 232.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up to speak to Bill C-68. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois may get his wish. At the rate the bill is going through the House, and with rumours that we may prorogue some time this fall, it may never see its final resting place in this session.

Last spring the House passed Motion No. 261 which called for the establishment of a national head start program. This motion, the vision and work of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, may well form part of the solution we seek in the administration of youth justice. I might even mention another colleague right next to me, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who seconded the motion of the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The genesis of this enlightened approach to raising, nurturing and disciplining a child is based on the concept of prevention of anti-social behaviour, rather than the management of a situation or problem that has been years in the making.

The work and research of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca reveals the importance of the first eight years of life. If an individual is exposed to pernicious behaviour such as drug abuse, sexual abuse, violence, dysfunctional parenting or absence of parenting at all, it has a negative impact on the child's brain. The neurological development of the child's brain is impeded. This has a consequence as the child grows to adolescence and on to become adult.

There is no question large segments of the current prison population are products of negative family exposure years before. This does not diminish their deeds, but I wonder if given a better chance we could have eliminated some of the possibility that these people would turn to criminal behaviour. Bill C-68 is all about making sure that people do not turn to criminal behaviour and that young children do not turn into criminals.

Would it not be better to spend a few dollars on those now in their formative years of one to eight than to spend it on lawyers, courts, psychologists, prisons, halfway houses and parole officers later? As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Bill C-68 provides us with an opportunity to initiate the practice of prevention rather than crisis management. Have we not been practising crisis management of young offenders since the early 1980s? Are we not on a treadmill to nowhere? Are we trying to transmogrify something that cannot be done?

I would like to speak about a national headstart program as one means to start on a different path. While I realize this initiative may not be a panacea, it may be at least one of the components in reducing youth crime and developing a more emotionally and socially adjusted adolescent into our society.

In the course of my years in politics one of the problems and curiosities as I see it in the development of public policy is neglect of linkages between programs emanating from department to department within governments. By this I mean government is negligent in identifying existing programs and policies which may aid or benefit in instituting a new program or help move a new concept along.

In short there is a plethora of programs out there in some sort of void waiting to be accessed and used. We have to get better at using the tools we have if we are to make the enlightened choices that we should be making.

Back in 1966 the government's own National Crime Prevention Council identified a national headstart program as a way to prevent crime and one that is cost effective. I mention again my colleagues the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who put that motion before the House in this session. In 1996 the government was doing it itself, talking about a headstart program yet to this date we do not have anything. There is nothing in this bill that talks about going a different way or doing anything different from what we have been doing all along.

One headstart program that was identified as being instrumental in significantly reducing crime was the Perry preschool program in Michigan. This program was one of two others identified, one which is in Moncton and the other in Hawaii. They were proven to in total decrease child abuse by 99%. Any program that can reduce this problem by 99% is one that we should be taking a quicker look at than we are in the House. A few years ago we looked at it from the government side and now this side puts in a motion. We are still not looking at it.

This program kept kids in school longer and dropped youth crime by 50% in other areas. It decreased teen pregnancies by 40% and saved the taxpayer in the final analysis $30,000 per child. What a success story. What a testament if not a template for Canada to use as a national youth strategy. Why are we not doing it?

The government has some money in this program but it only covers about 30% of the cost instead of 50% like it agreed to. It could save us $30,000 per child by bringing in this program. Why does the bureaucracy not push the government to get this program in place? The government bureaucracy says it is a good idea. Members on this side say it is a good idea. We should be looking at it.

We listened to our colleagues from Quebec who are opposed to this bill. They brought up some very good points. The government likes to attack and fight them because they are separatists but the facts are that the province of Quebec has a lower crime rate for children than we do in the rest of Canada. We should be looking at the program Quebec has. We should be paying attention to what is being done there.

I hope that when we get this bill into committee we will have lots of time to bring people from the province of Quebec to tell us what they disagree with in the present legislation and where they think we should be going. We should be looking to where the successes are, just as we should be looking to the headstart program because of the great success in that program.

One of the critical elements in the success of these three programs is the involvement of the parents. Parents are and have to be the axis around which the program revolves. No amount of money will replace the intrinsic importance of good parenting. Without a loving safe environment with rules of behaviour defined and boundaries established can a child be expected to grow to a stable socially responsible participant in society.

Bill C-68 has three elements concerning the role of parents. Should a child fall between the cracks and need help, under Bill C-68 parents will be called upon to become involved with representatives of the community to design and implement extrajudicial measures. There will have to be compulsory attendance of the parent at court when considered by the judge to be in the best interest of the young person. There will be increased punishment for the parent who signs a court undertaking to supervise the young person upon release and who wilfully waits or fails to fulfill that responsibility. That is extremely important. I will repeat that. There will be increased punishment for the parent who signs a court undertaking to supervise the young person upon release and who wilfully fails to fulfill that responsibility.

My colleague from Surrey North played a great part in this paragraph that I am reading. We should give him a lot of credit for the work that he has put into this youth legislation. We all know the effort that he puts in in the House working toward children. We all appreciate his commitment very much.

My colleague from Surrey North can take great pride, credit and solace in managing to motivate the government to include his initiatives in Bill C-68. It is because of the member's determination and concern as manifested in his private member's Bill C-260 that we have the parental responsibility prescribed in the new youth criminal justice act. It is one good part of this bill if nothing else.

That is why it is even more unfair for the government members to perpetuate untruths about Reform policy surrounding how to deal with 10 and 11 year olds in youth justice. At no time has any Reform member suggested incarcerating 10 and 11 year old kids. In fact enlightened work like the kind instituted by the member for Surrey North indicates a compassion for children and an attempt to put the onus on the parents.

Frankly it is the government that would like to sweep the issue of 10 and 11 year olds under the carpet, ignoring this challenge by saying there is no problem. It is simply abandoning these children. Is that not in itself a form of incarceration?

Maybe it is the government that has to take a look at its lack of recognition of 10 and 11 year olds in its new bill. Maybe it is the federal government's responsibility to become equal financial participants in programs with the provinces to rehabilitate these kids who have strayed. Maybe it is the federal government's responsibility to deal now with the issue of 10 and 11 year olds before they become incorrigibles later on.

It will however take more than $206 million over three years. The provinces have pleaded with the federal government on the need to deal with this age group. Why is it so difficult for the federal government? Is it because of the money? That is what is scary. This age group needs help and needs it badly. It is really a money issue. The government tries to cover it up under the flim-flam and the puffery but we need help in those areas. The provinces need help in those areas. We will debate these issues very deeply in committee and I look forward to that.