John Finlay

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues on the other side of the House who have spoken on Bill C-245 for their support and their thoughtful input on my private member's bill which will bring about improvements hopefully in our whole justice system.

I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby for reminding us that the Young Offenders Act needs some improvement and changes. I know our government will be bringing those forward.

I want to thank the member for Berthier—Montcalm who talked about the balancing of the freedom of expression in the protection of our children with respect to the Internet.

I want to thank the member for Kamloops who seconded my private member's bill and who pointed out from his experience as a teacher that this was something he had some first-hand knowledge of.

Finally, I want to thank the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who in his other life was a crown prosecutor and whom I feel made the point very clearly that major offences which incur short sentences are not really what we are looking for in Canada which is of course exactly what my bill is trying to address.

In my address earlier I mentioned how I considered the introduction of the bill to be my duty as a member of Parliament for Oxford. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines duty as a moral or legal obligation which one is bound or ought to do. I can assure hon. members I do feel a moral obligation to protect our children from abuse. This bill will help provide this protection.

As a member of Parliament I feel a legal obligation to introduce legislation that responds to a need within our society. My colleagues have made that quite clear in the last hour we have listened to them.

The cases I have laid out for hon. members show why I feel there is a need within our society for this legislation. If any members doubt me, they need only read of Martin Kruze or any other victim of abuse and ask themselves if the sentences being meted out are adequate. If so, please tell me why 44% of those convicted of sexual touching of a child under 14 received only probation.

I believe that we have a duty here today to provide protection for our children from those who prey on them. As part of this duty I ask the House for unanimous consent to introduce a motion. I move:

That Bill C-245 be made votable, that it be eligible for two additional hours of debate and, at the conclusion of this debate, be put to a vote at second reading.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1998]

, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops, moved that Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code, penalties for sexual offences involving children, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to perform one of my most important duties as the member of Parliament for Oxford. This duty is to introduce legislation when I see that current legislation is not responding to a need within our society.

Over the last year and a half I have identified such a need. I have found that those who sexually prey upon our children are merely being slapped on the wrist by our judicial system. This seems horrendous to me and to my constituents. Finding that the sentences for these crimes against our children are inadequate, I introduce Bill C-245 which we have before us today.

I would like to thank the NDP member for Kamloops for seconding the bill. The bill will increase the maximum sentence for sexual assault on a child to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. As well the sentence for forcible confinement of a child is increased to 14 years from the current 10. The definition of child pornography would extend to any information or reproduction transmitted by electronic means.

In the next few minutes I want to share with hon. members why my constituents and I believe the bill should be passed by Parliament.

The current maximum sentence for sexual assault is 10 years. According to information obtained through the adult criminal court survey, the average sentence given in 1993 and 1994 for level two sexual assault and level three sexual assault was 1,287 days, less than four years. Yet level two and level three sexual assault are sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault. These statistics were compiled using data from nine provincial jurisdictions.

There is no real distinction between sexual assault on a child and other charges of sexual assault.

I would like to share with this House the average sentence for sexual touching of a child under 14. For this charge, in which sexual intent must be proven, the average sentence imposed by the courts was 288 days, not even a full year. Furthermore, 77% of the accused in solved violent incidents involving children under 12 had a relationship with the victim. In 31% of these cases, the accused was a member of the victim's immediate family.

As members can see, these are not statistics that make one sleep easily at night.

I spent 36 years of my life in education as a teacher, union representative, principal and superintendent. I worked with our children. I am witness to the effects of abuse on children. I know the innocence of a child is destroyed by sexual abuse. I have heard the confusion and self-guilt in the mind of a sensitive teenage boy after his experience with a pedophile.

We as legislators must ask ourselves how an average sentence of 377 days for level one sexual assault can atone for the loss of a child's innocence and self-respect.

Bill C-245 speaks directly to sexual assault upon a child. The bill seeks to amend section 271 of the Criminal Code by increasing the maximum sentence to imprisonment for life with no parole eligibility for 25 years if found guilty of sexual assault on a child under eight or under fourteen who was under the offender's trust or authority or dependent on the offender.

I want to make it very clear that this sentence is the same sentence as that for first degree murder. It is my belief and that of many of my constituents that in the very worst cases of child sexual assault the sentence should be equal to that of murder. Why? Because these assaults have murdered the child's soul, the child's self-esteem and the child's mind.

We cannot see a Martin Kruze throw himself off a bridge without knowing why. His abuser led him there and pushed him off with his continued abuse as surely as if he were present.

One constituent wrote to me of the sentence received by a sex offender. The writer said “He gets a lousy two years probation and my child gets life”. Two years of probation to walk the streets, be employed and have a life while the child is devastated and emotionally murdered and his parents hope that just maybe he might find his life worth living again.

Unfortunately many victims of abuse find that life is not worth living again. And far too many of their abusers walk the streets after a sentence that does not reflect the severity of their crime.

My office has received many letters like the one I have just quoted from. Some are short and simply indicate support for this bill. Others are long and tell of the writer's experience with sexual abuse. These letters are not easy to read because they talk of the hurt and betrayal felt by the victims.

Of the three main cases I have received correspondence on, all have told of abuse delivered by someone known to the victim and to his or her family. The abusers were not strangers but a stepfather, a neighbour and a “big brother”, that is in this case a volunteer from the Big Brothers organization.

I would like to quote from one letter I received from a woman in my riding whose son was abused by his Big Brother volunteer. The mother says “I cannot believe when this man came to my house, when I thought it would be good for my son to have a big brother to look up to, a father figure in his life, that he could end up doing the things he did to him. I interviewed this man for at least two hours and was happy to think that my son was lucky to have a man like this in his life”.

Many years later this mother was devastated by the news that this man, this father figure, had sexually abused her child beginning at the age of eight. The woman's son had a very troubled adolescence. He spent time in jail and his mother now knows why. This woman has asked me to do everything I can to ensure that those who prey upon our children, as this man did on her son, are punished severely for their crimes. I want us to promise her today in the highest legislative body in this land that we will not let her down.

This issue was brought to my attention through a case in my riding. A father was convicted on three counts of unlawful confinement for locking his three sons in wire cages in a dark basement, three counts of administering a noxious substance for making them eat their own feces and drink their own urine, and three counts of assault for beating them. In addition this man was convicted of numerous sex charges, including three counts of intercourse with a girl under 14. The victims of the sexual assaults were his three stepdaughters. The perpetrator of these crimes was sentenced to 18.5 years in prison but he will be eligible for parole in just over six.

I would like to offer my thanks to the Woodstock Daily Sentinel Review for bringing this case to my attention. The reporter who covered this trial for the Sentinel Review called it the most disturbing case she has ever had to report on.

I can honestly say that this bill represents a fine example of how the press and the community has worked with me, their local member, to try to correct the weakness in our judicial system.

Because of the frightful instances of forcible confinement in the aforementioned case, I have included in Bill C-245 an amendment to section 279 of the Criminal Code. This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for forcible confinement to 14 years from 10 in the case of a parent or ward who confines their child and thereby harms the child's physical or mental health. Anyone who questions why I felt an increase in this sentence is necessary need only recall what that father did to his sons.

The final section of Bill C-245 would ensure that the definition of publication in the case of child pornography would cover display, transmission or storage by electronic mail and the Internet.

Some think government has no business regulating the information superhighway but I suspect that protecting our children in society from those who would trade in child pornography is far more important than any supposed right on the Internet.

Information technology is an incredible development. I continue to encourage my constituents to take advantage of the Internet to benefit themselves and their communities, but we cannot allow criminal use of the information superhighway to endanger our children.

It is my belief that my introduction of this bill into the House of Commons was my duty as the member of Parliament for Oxford. As I stated at the outset, it is a duty I take very seriously. As a member of Parliament and as a citizen of this great country of ours, I also have another duty. That duty is to speak for and to protect those members of our society who cannot protect themselves.

Each of us here in this House has a moral obligation to protect our children from those who prey upon them. I do not doubt for a moment that all members feel this obligation to our nation's children.

Bill C-245 is not a votable bill. During the subcommittee meeting I was asked by the member for Brandon—Souris why I felt my bill would increase sentences when in fact it did not impose a minimum sentence for these crimes. It was an excellent question. I dare say some members who are to follow me in this debate will raise this as an objection. For this reason, I offer my colleagues an answer.

Parliament speaks with a loud voice in the courtrooms across this land. If we were to pass this bill, we would be saying to our judicial system that the protection of our children is paramount.

Our voice with the governor general's signature attached would say that in the worst cases of abuse, those who prey upon our children must be removed from society for life. Our voice would represent constituents across the country who speak through us and who want their children protected.

Some changes may need to be made to this bill. I feel our colleagues on the justice committee can make these changes in the best interests of our children.

The support I received for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association has let me know that our front line law enforcement officers agree with increased sentences to protect our children.

I feel that this bill should be voted on by members of this House. For those members who are not familiar with the cases I have dealt with in my riding they need only look at cases in their own ridings. Any members who have dealt with children have met those who have suffered from the horrors of abuse.

We can all remember the recent problems within Maple Leaf Gardens or with Graham James and Sheldon Kennedy. We can recall the abuse perpetrated on our aboriginal children in orphanages and residential schools, religious or otherwise. Thank God for people like Sheldon Kennedy who spoke out about the years of abuse he suffered. He has battled back to be a model for victims but we must also remember that for every Sheldon Kennedy there is a Martin Kruze who saw as his only escape, especially after a ridiculously short sentence given to his abuser, a jump off Toronto's Bloor Street viaduct.

I would ask members to look into their hearts and ask themselves if we would be performing our duty if this bill was not put to a vote. It is time to send a message to sex offenders that the time for judicial slaps on the wrist has past. Canadians will not allow us to pass the buck to other jurisdictions or wait until some obscure commission passes recommendations.

If this House decides in approximately 35 minutes that this bill should not be votable I ask those members present to look into the eyes of a victim or the mother of a victim and tell them why they have to wait for justice. If amendments should be made let us send this bill to committee so it can hear witnesses and make changes to improve the bill.

Early in my speech I read from a letter sent to me from an abused child's mother. I would like to refer to that letter again. This mother says:

Child abuse of any kind has to stop, and the introduction of your bill will certainly be a start. I am tired of those people being set free and sent to counselling and everything is okay. It certainly is not okay, that doesn't do a thing for the victims who have to live with this the rest of their lives. In requesting higher sentences for these sex offenders, how can I ask this be considered out of line, when, in fact, the children are sentenced to life without parole, in trying to live with what was inflicted upon them.

It is time to perform our duty and to protect our children. I ask this House for its support of Bill C-245.

[Hemp, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon, March 13, the federal Minister of Health came to Tillsonburg, a town in my riding, to announce officially regulations for the growing of industrial hemp in time for the 1998 growing season. This will be the first time in over 60 years that industrial hemp can be grown legally in Canada.

Every part of the hemp plant can be used commercially: the seeds for oil and food; the foliage for medicine; and the stems for fabric, paper, fuel, paints, construction materials and auto parts.

Hemp does not need pesticides in order to grow well and should assist us in saving our forests because a relatively small acreage can produce vast amounts of paper on a sustainable basis.

I thank the Minister of Health and members of the Liberal rural caucus from both houses of parliament for working hard to make this announcement a reality. I look forward to keeping the House apprised of the development of this incredible crop.

[Hemp, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, farmers in southwestern Ontario have been waiting for years for regulations to permit the planting of industrial hemp. Why is the minister stalling on this? Can farmers plan now to plant industrial hemp this spring?

[Sevec, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it when I was informed by an Oxford county teacher that the Ontario government has pulled its support for the Society of Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada, also known as SEVEC.

SEVEC has been administering the Ontario-Quebec six month student exchange program on behalf of the ministry of education and training since 1990. This funding has now been eliminated by the Harris government.

Now is not the time to cut programs that foster understanding between Canada's regions. I thought Mike Harris was in favour of helping the cause of Canadian unity. This cut to a crucial program certainly does not help in keeping Canada united.

Thankfully the Department of Canadian Heritage assisted students last year in the Canada student exchange. Hopefully we at the federal level can fill this void so irresponsibly left by the Ontario Tories.

If Mike Harris has any sense, which I doubt, he will restore funding to SEVEC.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his question.

Successive governments, Liberal and Progressive Conservative, built up the debt. That is quite true. However we elected those governments. There is only one taxpayer and we will have to pay the debt sooner or later.

It is better to pay it under a balanced system which tries to take into account all the needs, beginning with those most serious like health care, seniors benefits and the disabled, than to have a government that would hand it all out in some form of tax cut to everybody whether or not they need it.

I am very glad my colleague's son is working successfully in Alberta. Perhaps there is a lesson there. No one else will pay the debt and no one else will balance the budget. The people of Canada will do that, as we have been doing it.

We are still considered the best country in the world in which to live. People are still clamouring to come here. We must be doing something right. The government got it right this time and will keep on doing it until things are in balance.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Durham for splitting his time with me.

It is with courage and a commitment to do what is right that the government has been successful on the economic front. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance realized we could not continue to burden our children with constant deficits and an ever increasing mountain of debt.

The national debt of more than $600 billion hangs like a millstone around our necks. It takes 35¢ of every tax dollar collected just to pay the interest.

When the Liberal government was first elected in October 1993 we inherited a deficit of $42 billion. This past fiscal year the deficit came in at $8.9 billion, almost $20 billion lower than the deficit in 1995-96. It also represented the largest year over year reduction in the deficit in Canadian history. At 1.1% of GDP as compared to 6% per cent of GDP when the government took office it is the smallest federal government deficit in over two decades.

This represents economic success that we are well on the road to surpassing. There are indications that the federal government will be at or very near a balanced budget this year. With a balanced budget Canadian taxpayers can begin to look forward to annual surpluses rather than annual deficits.

This fiscal dividend will force the government and by extension the Canadian people to make choices about the kind of Canada we want to build for our children and grandchildren.

The Liberal Party pledged during the last federal election that any surplus would be invested in social spending, for example health care, youth employment initiatives and education, as well as debt reduction and tax relief. It was a platform that I endeavoured to ensure my constituents understood so that they knew what to expect from a Liberal government.

It is clear that we need to make certain strategic investments. Some quick examples of this type of investment are the increases in the Canadian health and social transfer allocation to $12.5 billion a year and the prime minister's millennium scholarship fund which will help Canadian students compete in the global economy. These investments strengthen Canadian society for today and tomorrow.

We must remember, though, that the battle against the deficit is not finished. As we enter the era of surplus we must remember that we continue to have an immense debt hanging over our heads. We ignore it at our peril. I am convinced, and I believe the people of Oxford agree with me, that we should invest as much of the surplus as possible in debt reduction.

While it is tempting to prescribe a short term tax reduction fix, it will have been for naught if economic circumstances change and we have not reduced the national debt. The fiscal dividend cannot be used to benefit this generation alone. We must look forward and realize that Canadians decades from now will judge us for what we do about the debt now.

I do not want to tell my grandchildren that when I had the chance to influence government policy, as I do now, I did nothing to relieve them of the tremendous burden of paying interest year after year after year on a $600 billion national debt.

We hear a lot in the House and in the provincial capitals of the country about tax cuts. For the past few years the leader of the Reform Party has stood and asked the Minister of Finance when Canadians could expect an across the board tax cut. As a member of Parliament from Ontario I have been able to see firsthand the effects of the Mike Harris inspired tax cut.

Since Mike Harris is some type of super hero to Reformers, we can assume a Reform administration would operate much like the Ontario Tories. Mike Harris and the Ontario Tories have made a crucial mistake in making a tax cut. By reducing taxes before the budget is balanced, Mike Harris has been forced to make draconian cuts to some essential services in Ontario.

Members of the official opposition may have a problem with my use of the word draconian. To me an additional $700 million cut in education spending, following the $700 million loss in provincial revenues due to the latest round of the tax cut, is draconian. Speaking personally, the small amount of money I save from the Harris tax cut is not worth the effect it is having on the education system in Ontario.

If the Reform Party were governing the country it would follow the lead of Mike Harris. Could the Reform Party tell us how much will have to be cut from education, health care and the environment to pay for the tax cuts? Furthermore, it would add $600 million to our debt through its super RRSP to replace the CPP. How could we possibly trust a party that refuses to even acknowledge that the CPP has an unfunded liability of $600 million that must be paid out whether or not people are paying into the plan?

We all want tax cuts, but those of us on this side of the House feel they should not come before they are sustainable. We cannot afford to cut taxes one year, only to raise them the next, or, worse, cut an essential program because we provided an across the board tax cut before it could be sustained.

In the short term tax cuts should be targeted at those who need it the most. These are students, persons with disabilities and children of working parents with low incomes. To be honest these tax cuts have already been made by the government in the last federal budget.

Now we need to broaden the group to include, possibly, environmental initiatives, agricultural and agri-food development, technological and biological research, and an end to the luxury tax on jewellery. These selective tax cuts could provide a needed shot of adrenalin to the economy while assisting certain sectors to remain competitive.

In the aftermath of Kyoto it would be appropriate for a firm specializing in environmental technologies to receive some tax assistance for undertaking research and development in this area. This can assist Canada and the global community in reaching their goals. Canada is already a leader in environmental technologies. Let us take it one step further to underscore Canada's commitment to the environment and sustainable development.

As well, we need to reward research and development in new agricultural products. Tax measures taken by the Minister of Finance have already assisted in helping a growing domestic ethanol industry. Programs like the tobacco diversification program are successful in assisting farmers in developing new crops. Southwestern Ontario is playing a large role in the development of an industrial hemp crop for export as fibre to the United States. This industry will create jobs in rural Canada and government assistance will allow it to get off to a fast and successful start.

I would also like to discuss briefly the excise tax on jewellery. The finance committee report which we are debating now suggested that the Minister of Finance consider removing this luxury tax. This is a 10% excise tax which is unfair when other items of luxury, such as fur coats, speed boats and sports cars, are not similarly taxed. While there is some debate concerning the correlation between the luxury tax on jewellery and the underground economy, I ask the Minister of Finance to do what is just and remove this unfair tax.

Before I conclude I would like to refer to cost recovery in the agricultural sector. This is an issue that I dealt with extensively with corn producers in my riding in the debate over the creation of the Pest Management Review Agency, the PMRA.

While farmers are prepared to bear a portion of the costs for these programs and for the most part do not have a problem with cost recovery, we have to ensure the system is fair. We cannot ask farmers to pay for a system that is top heavy in bureaucracy and benefits other groups. For farmers to pay the entire cost of this program when consumers and industry also benefit from it is unfair.

I sincerely hope the government has learned a lesson from the PMRA debate which took place last winter and spring. I congratulate the committee for studying the issue during its deliberations.

Five years ago we would never have seen a debate like the one taking place in the House today. The standing committee and members of the House could not have offered their feelings about the budget in a debate like this one today. Consultations took place in bank board rooms with the country's elite in attendance. The average citizen on the street did not have a choice.

I thank the Minister of Finance for giving Canadians a voice in this process. His previous budgets have shown that he listens to the debate in the House, to committees and to average Canadians.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance for giving me the opportunity to share my perspectives in this important debate.

[Women's Employment Resource Centre Of Oxford, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as we mourn the victims of the Montreal massacre, I would like to share a positive story about women in my riding.

The Women's Employment Resource Centre of Oxford County provides women with the assistance needed to re-enter the workforce. The majority of women who come to the centre for help are on social assistance. While the centre still receives some funding from Human Resources Development, it has established a dress making business to supplement its income.

The centre trains women as designers and sewers and with the help of a Hamilton entrepreneur markets the garments across Canada. Its niche market is fashions for the larger woman and its label “Celebrating Size” is the best seller in the catalogue.

I helped cut the ribbon to open its new retail outlet in Woodstock. The pride of the women in their achievement was evident in their faces. I am happy to see the Women's Employment Resource Centre contributing to the gain of 30,000 full time jobs for Canadian women this November.

[Environment, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, imagine my surprise when I discovered that the Leader of the Opposition challenged the very existence of a global warming problem.

Are he and his fellow Reformers the only ones who continue to believe that global warming would be good for Canada's climate, that air polluted by smog is a tasty delicacy? Perhaps they think that global warming is an international conspiracy. Or are they all members of the flat earth society?

I thought the world hit an all time environmental low when Ronald Reagan challenged the existence of acid rain. Today I am not so sure because I cannot believe an educated man like the Leader of the Opposition would make the ridiculous statements he made in the House last week.

Global warming is a real problem. All of us as Canadians must work together to help solve the problem of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will be helping us to protect the global environment in the future.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette on his maiden speech and his characterization of his riding. I am sure we all remember when we said equally glowing things. I appreciate that because it makes us remember why we are here.

I worked with the previous member for Churchill, Elijah Harper. He is a Cree Indian. I remember an exchange with the Reform Party in the last House when Elijah was dealing with a bill much like the bill which is before the House today. It was a bill which gave powers to a group of aboriginal people, a unified people. Reform members were saying that it would be far too expensive and that if we carried on that way British Columbia would end up as a native community and all the other people would have to leave and that sort of nonsense.

Elijah stood and he said “My colleagues in the Reform Party, you just do not get it, do you? You do not have the foggiest notion of what I am talking about. I am talking about my people, my ancestors, the people who have inhabited this land for some 10,000 to 15,000 years. They lived here without the benefit of gasoline, internal combustion engines, high powered rifles, airplanes, helicopters and a lot of other things”. I am glad Elijah is not dead. He would be rolling in his grave if he had heard the speech today.

The member used a very poor analogy. He suggested that perhaps the native people were not democratic. Surely my colleague knows that one of the problems is that the 625 First Nations consider themselves to be independent, individual First Nations. They have a system of government and a way of operating.

Before we came along they traded right across the country, from California to Nova Scotia, from Alaska to Florida. They worked out things together. They had regions. They did a little fighting now and then and took a few prisoners. They took a scalp or two, but most of the time they settled their differences at councils, by talking. We have to learn that.

Then there is this nonsense about them all wanting to have equality. That is a very hard term to get hold of. My friends in the Reform Party use it without due consideration. What they mean is, we throw the native people in with everybody else to follow the same rules. If they are in B.C., they will follow the rules of B.C. If they are in Vancouver, they will follow the rules of Vancouver. If they are somewhere else, they will follow those rules. That is not what they want at all. That is not why we have spent a long time trying to redress the balance.

Yes, former governments and people thought we could assimilate the natives. They were not educated. They were savages. They did not have a system of government because we trampled on it. We did not pay much attention to it.

Some of the early treaties, yes, we have read about them. They sat, said nice things to one another and they welcomed them to share this country. That is what they want to do again. That is what this is bill is aiming toward. It is going to take time, goodwill. It is going to take some knowledge of history and some knowledge of what is involved. I do not hear much of that on the other side. I hear catch words and buzzwords.

If my colleague is so concerned about his native people, maybe he would tell us why his party opposed the Nisga'a agreement? Why are Reformers afraid that these terrible native people are going to take over the whole country and throw us out?