John Reynolds

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Winnipeg and it is a wonderful city, but if I had a choice I would rather be in British Columbia.

On the question regarding putting a bullet in his head and going to British Columbia, I do not have the newspaper clippings here but I will make sure they are delivered to the member's office very shortly. There was a woman in Ottawa whose husband who worked for the RCMP was lying in bed; she put two bullets in his head and obviously killed him. She also killed the dog. She received a conditional sentence and went to British Columbia where her children are. That was her sentence. A conditional sentence.

That is why I put the motion before the committee. I will give the minister credit. I have been asking for this to go to committee for quite a while. The committee has not handled the problem.

Violent crimes of this type should not be given conditional sentences. I think the woman would have received more time in jail had she been charged with just killing the dog. The SPCA would have created a big furore about it. But she killed her husband and she is now in British Columbia. There are many cases like that. I was going to get into this when I talked about conditional sentencing but I ran out of time.

Two gentlemen in Montreal were convicted of a brutal rape. Both men were given conditional sentences because the judge felt they did not quite understand our justice system because it is not the same as the one where they were born. They both have lived in Canada, one for nine years and the other for eleven years.

That is what is wrong with conditional sentencing in this country. The committee knows that. There has been no movement by this government to get it into committee, speed it up and start to do something about that. The parliamentary secretary gets very mad when I talk about these things, but that is our job. We are the opposition. We point out the faults. The system is not totally wrong, but there are some serious faults in the system and they have to be corrected.

My friend from the NDP talked about boot camps. I do not know if he has been to the one in Ontario but a lot of parents who have had kids go to this boot camp have written the government saying it was a great idea. It certainly beats the Liberal idea of throwing them in jail. The Liberals want to throw them all in jail. Why not have a boot camp where they can get some education instead of putting people in jail. The Liberals want to put young people in jail. We want to put them in a facility where they can get an education and learn what it is like in society, not throw them in the present jail system which is underfunded and does not work properly because of this government and the government before it.

There have been two parliamentary reports on penitentiaries in this country. One was done in 1972, chaired by Mark MacGuigan, of which I was a member and which made recommendations. The other was done in 1987. Both the Tory government and the Liberal government have done nothing about those reports.

We still have a rotten system and it is not working. Boot camps might have a place in our system. I suggest that the member visit the one in Ontario.

In my speech I did not get the chance to talk about prevention. There is no prevention. We want to look at prevention to make sure these things do not happen. That includes looking at poverty and unemployment about which the member talks. I agree with him. They are serious issues. We are not going to solve the other justice problems without solving unemployment and poverty issues. We want to look at those issues too.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

The people I am talking about are respectable. They do not like this bill. It is a bad bill and should be changed. Hopefully we will do that in committee.

“This new legislation is not only overdue, but also fails once again to protect society from dangerous and violent offenders”, said Garry Rosenfeldt, executive director of Victims of Violence.

“Criminal behaviour of 16 and 17 year old youth will still remain in youth court, irrespective of their crime. Thus one of the most profound and controversial loopholes within the justice system remains”.

“In the new bill, the definition of serious violent offence is so vague that it is also almost useless. Poll after poll has shown that 80% of Canadians have little or no confidence in the federal Young Offenders Act. The new youth criminal justice act will do nothing to improve that. It's a shame Ottawa refused to listen”.

This is the Ontario government. It sure loves this bill, the one this government is bragging about, when it has done very little to help Canadians.

There is another issue in our criminal justice system that raises Canadian cynicism to new levels, the use of conditional sentencing. I could go on for long. It seems I have been interrupted so many times I am not getting this whole exercise in. Conditional sentencing is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. One of my colleagues will talk in more detail about it.

The whole issue in the justice system today is that this government is not listening. It wants to blame the Reform Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives for all the problems in the country.

The Liberals have had two elections since the Tories were defeated to straighten things out. They still have not done it. They still do not have health care where it should be. The justice system is nowhere near what it should be and this is the government that has done that. It has served its time.

What do those members do now? They get arrogant. If they present a bill, we are not good Canadians if we do not like it. If we hammer the justice bill, we are against all the good things that should happen in this country.

I have seven children and seven grandchildren. I know what is happening in this country as much as any Liberal on that side with young people. We need some changes in this law and we need them now.

I hope the government will listen when we get to committee, listen to what is happening in this debate today on the issues that are before us and make some serious changes in the areas of justice. We need them and we need them bad.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

I hear the parliamentary secretary complaining about this police chief.

She did not complain about the stooge they had standing up at their press conference saying what the government wanted them to say. They do not all agree. There is a blatant disagreement out there about what is happening in the Young Offenders Act. They bring the people to it.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Maybe now that they know that they will not get up as often.

Let me now tell them about the attorney general in Ontario. They love the Ontario government on that side of the House and they will love it even less when it wins a re-election in Ontario with a big majority. This is what the attorney general of Ontario has to say about the Young Offenders Act:

Ontario is concerned that under the new federal bill 16 and 17 year olds who commit adult crimes are not automatically tried as adults.

That is a serious issue that most Canadians think of. Most justice ministers across Canada have asked this government to address this issue but it has not addressed it:

Even for murder, aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter and attempted murder there is no guarantee that youths will be sentenced as an adult. Even on the third rape charge, there is no guarantee of an adult sentence.

That is the kind of change we are trying to make in this bill.

Most serious violent offences still require the prosecutor to prove an adult sentence is necessary; jail sentences have been reduced; youths sentenced as adults for murder are still subject to more lenient periods of parole ineligibility than adults sentenced for murder; mandatory jail time is not required for youths convicted of an offence involving a weapon.

This could result in a 17 year old who commits first degree murder or other violent crimes still being treated as a child.

“Under this new act, a three time rapist could still be treated as a child. Rape, drug trafficking, guns—these are adult crimes and have to be treated as such. In the youth criminal justice act, there are no guarantees that serious violent crime will be treated as adult crime”, stated Mr. Harnick.

“What the people of Ontario have been asking for is legislation that will better protect our children and our communities, that will send a message to young people that they will be held accountable for their actions and would deter youth crime. Instead, the federal Liberal government has released a bill that has little regard for public safety and even less regard for providing meaningful consequences for criminal behaviour such as sexual assault, drug trafficking and use of a weapon”, said solicitor general and minister of correctional services, Bob Runciman.

“Many police officers and citizens across Ontario are frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems primarily concerned with the rights of offenders”, explained York regional police Chief Julian Fantino.

“It's disappointing that the federal government won't take the opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime”.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I hope they will stop making these serious interruptions. I hope you are not taking this out of my time.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the member took it from me to say that the government was funding at 50:50 I apologize to him and to Canadians. I was saying it should be funding at 50:50 and it is not doing it. In my province it is about 14%. In Ontario it is even less. It has messed up the health care system which gets these 10 and 11 year olds into crime, and it cannot stand that. It cannot take the heat.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we hear someone from across yelling that we want to cane them. What a sad day in Canada when we have members here talking about caning and putting people in jail when we are trying to get a system that works. This government, which will not fund the Young Offenders Act properly, has not done it properly. That is why we have problems in this country. It is just like the health program. It is supposed to be funded 50% by this government but it is doing 20% and 14%. It has made a mess of it and it tries to blame it on the opposition.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would never impute another member with telling a lie but I would tell anyone listening that anyone who says the Reform Party wants to put 10 and 11 year olds in jail is not telling the truth. This party and the justice committee want to see 10 and 11 year olds in the system where they can be looked after to make sure they do not become young offenders and get involved in the system. That is what everybody wants. We want them in the system. The provinces want them in the system so they can get the funding from the federal government which it does not want to put in. That is what this system is about in terms of 10 and 11 year olds.

This government wants to put no money into it. It does not want to help the provinces help these poor 10 and 11 year olds who are in this system. That is what it is all about and that is why the Liberals throw out the false claims about who wants to put who in jail. I have never in my life seen anything so low for a justice minister. I hope they will withdraw what they are saying in that area.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

The parliamentary secretary said it is true. I will tell her it is an absolute lie. Nobody in this party has ever said we want to put a 10 or 11 year old in jail.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting when we get on this topic how sensitive the government is.

The member knows that what I am talking about is a case that has already been before the court. There is an appeal going on. I am not trying to influence it. I am talking about a case that happened and he knows that. It is quite legitimate.

To hear the other member complain about my colleague saying something about Canada when yesterday government members were calling us “not Canadians” because of the way we voted is shameful. They have no shame left at all. They are so arrogant and they will probably keep on interrupting me throughout my whole speech because of that arrogance.

Let me continue. Those parents, and for that matter anyone with any degree of compassion for the sanctity of the human spirit and life, cannot be faulted in concluding that some individuals with bizarre lifestyles and values want more acknowledgement by the courts as opposed to those who fall within the mainstream of values and lifestyles. Some, it appears, have more right to freedom of conscience than others.

As in the case of any court decision, let alone a controversial one like the Shaw decision, there are ramifications. Decisions are not made to go into a void. There is a fallout and there are long term consequences.

In British Columbia there have been two very real consequences. Because of the Shaw decision two other individuals charged with possession of child pornography have had their cases dismissed. Some 36 other cases are pending and the lower courts hearing these cases have no alternative but to throw them out.

Shaw's decision guarantees the legality of the possession of child pornography until the court of appeal rules in late April. For now British Columbia is the only province where the possession of child pornography is legal, and that is not right.

The assertion by the federal Minister of Justice that things are under control and prosecutions for possession are continuing is simply not true. For now it is open season for pedophiles in British Columbia.

Five days following the Shaw decision a group of 63 Liberal MPs and six Liberal senators began a campaign of protest against the Shaw decision. The 69 signatories to an open letter to their leader, the Prime Minister, called child pornography a product of crime. They called it sexual abuse of children and the work of pedophiles. They stated that the federal government has no greater responsibility than the protection of children by those who prey on their innocence and their inability to protect themselves. They even went so far, in closing a paragraph in their missive to the Prime Minister, as to call for new child pornography legislation and for the Prime Minister to consider using the notwithstanding clause to ensure the charter will never again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children. A very realistic view of the situation and a reasonable request of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, empty in honour and resolve and a cruel hoax on children as events would prove themselves 13 days later.

On February 2 these same Liberal MPs were asked to stand in the House and give a meaning of support to their previous protestations. They were asked to support a Reform Party motion calling for the reinstatement of child pornography laws in British Columbia, even if it meant using the very clause of the Constitution Act which they implored the PM to use two weeks before.

When push came to shove, 59 of this virtuous group of Liberal MPs abandoned any notice of the vulnerability of children and their victimization at the hands of pedophiles. Four had the resolve and did what they said they would do.

The task assigned our police in the interdiction of child pornography is a mess. That is why the Shaw decision makes it even more frustrating for those charged with policing and reducing the proliferation of child pornography, particularly its dissemination on the Internet.

In British Columbia's case police can intercede and confiscate child pornography but cannot prosecute. The unregulated Internet has become the vehicle of choice and 20% of all traffic is generated by traceable kiddy porn web sites.

In a recently released RCMP intelligence report British Columbia is identified as the only province where child pornography is a serious concern for law enforcement agencies. Is that not a cruel irony in light of the Shaw decision and its concern for essential person rights for pedophiles?

Those individuals involved in this pernicious behaviour, hiding behind the charter of rights, are attempting to systematically normalize sexual immorality and the Shaw decision gives them that licence.

Herbert London, professor of humanities at the University of New York, said morality is not subjective but is a prerequisite for ordered society. Those who want the transmogrify of value system to which the majority of Canadians subscribe are an anathema to decency and respect.

I will turn now to another tragic example of Liberal government intransigence and dismissal of public concern. Last week we were treated to the long awaited changes to the Young Offenders Act. The new criminal act will be called the youth criminal justice act but despite this high sounding phrase it really will not change things a lot.

There are some glaring omissions and some glaring shortcomings to this act. I will identify some of those. First there is the limitation of the publication of names for certain offences classified as adults.

The bill limits these to five situations: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and repeat serious violent offences. This leaves a lot of violent and frightening offences out of the loop.

Second, the Reform Party, and for that matter an all party committee recommendation, called for the lowering of the maximum age of youth offenders from 17 to 15. We did not get this and I am surprised the minister would not address it.

Third, there has been a consistent call from all quarters dealing with young offenders to have the minimum age of offenders lowered to 10 years from 12. Again, the committee of this House and the minister's own justice department years and years ago called for this reduction. So has a private member's bill from one of my colleagues but we have never seen that.

The opting out provisions are also a concern for us. Simply put, there has to be universality in the provisions of the law, period. We also question the federal government's commitment to financial resources to youth justice. The announcement of $206 million is over a three year period. The federal government has never met its 50:50 cost sharing in the youth justice area and this money will hardly make up for that shortfall.

I go back to the point of the 10 to 12 year olds because I was never so shocked, the day that bill was introduced, to see the Minister of Justice talking about Reformers wanting to put 10 and 11 year old children in jail.