Jason Kenney

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on sentencing guidelines, but I do know that the current Criminal Code does not have a minimum sentence provision for simple robbery as an example. I am proposing that home invasion be treated along the same lines as committing a crime with a firearm, which I gather carries a minimum sentence of four years.

The member is absolutely right when he says that this is a serious problem.

I read a story of a different home invasion which occurred in Edmonton this year. Two young people invaded a home, attacked the occupants and ran off when the police appeared. A reporter who covered the story interviewed some neighbours who said that these types of invasions had been going on for some time. These young people will check mailboxes, look in windows and when chased away say what are the cops going to do.

It is comments like that which reflect the growing lack of confidence Canadians have in our criminal justice system. I think it is atrocious that ordinary law-abiding lay people feel that the police do not have the criminal sanctions they need to ensure these kinds of violent invasions of people's homes do not occur.

I do not propose a particular guideline, but I do think there should be some kind of minimum sentence for cases which involve this aggravating factor of home invasion.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any unparliamentary remarks. I hope members across will try to engage in a more serious and substantive debate.

I recall, running in the last election in my constituency, that one of the most obvious concerns of my constituents, as I went door to door to thousands of homes in the southeast part of Calgary, was crime, particularly violent crime by young offenders. One issue raised with me frequently was the growing trend in home invasions. It is something I would like to address.

When I look at the overall statistics that Statistics Canada reported in 1995, 27% of urban residents of Canada had been victims of crime. About one quarter of Canadians were afraid to walk alone after hours in their neighbourhoods.

It is a shame that in what we often regard as such a peaceful country, so many of our fellow citizens should feel afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods at night. We cannot rest as legislators as long as the kind of fear founded on crime disturbs the normal and peaceable lives of Canadian citizens.

I look at the situation in an otherwise stable and peaceful suburb of my constituency, the Sundance community. There was a gang fight in September 1997. A 17 year old whose name has been withheld by virtue of the Young Offenders Act stabbed and assaulted three 16 year olds. One of them had lost 10 litres of blood. He was stabbed in the heart, coronary artery and liver. An autopsy was scheduled for one of the three victims of the young offender's crime.

The 17 year old, who was nicknamed Baby Gangster, was sentenced to one year. His name was not released. The judge in that case said “he has a propensity for violence but it is more attitude than anger”. The judge cited a psychological report urging social and anger managing counselling. With all due respect, attitude was not the problem. The lack of social management counselling was not the problem. The problem was that there was a violent thug who nearly took a child's life.

We as legislators need to take more seriously the justice part of the justice system when it comes to imposing appropriate sanctions on individuals like this young so-called gangster.

I also raise the tragic case of young Clayton McGloan of the northeast part of Calgary. Later this month I will be hosting a town hall meeting with his parents. Clayton McGloan was a 17 year old who was viciously attacked by a gang of youths in the Coral Springs community of Calgary on October 31, 1998. He was hit over the head with a bottle, knocked unconscious and stabbed 12 times in the back. This was not an attitude problem on the part of the person who attacked him. It was a vicious murder, attempted and executed.

Clayton fought hard to stay alive. However life support was removed two days later after he was declared clinically brain dead. Close to 2,000 people attended his funeral.

Two juveniles, 15 and 17 years old, were charged but again they cannot be identified under the Young Offenders Act. They will not be identifiable under the bill recently introduced by the Minister of Justice. Both these juveniles stand a good chance of re-entering society in a couple of years.

This is the backdrop we see as members of parliament in representing our constituents. I find it unfortunate that after years and years of advocacy and hard work on the part of victims and their families to establish more meaningful sanctions for violent crime, particularly violent youth crime, that Bill C-68 placed before this House by the Minister of Justice does not come anywhere close to addressing the very real concerns of Canadians on this issue.

I now turn to a growing trend which really is very disturbing, the trend of home invasions. This is a situation where criminals invade a home as a random act if they know the occupants are there. This is not just a simple break and enter for the purpose of robbery. This is an aggravated form of assault on the property and home of residents.

In Kitchener—Waterloo a 71 year old woman was terrorized. Teenage thugs broke into her home, bound her, blindfolded her and threatened her with assault. I read of a case on Saltspring Island, British Columbia where residents were dismayed after their home had been invaded twice in five weeks by separate groups of young offenders.

In my own riding I recall going door to door in the election. I knocked on a door and an elderly lady came to the door after several minutes. She was petrified to open the door. She kept the chain on. She asked me what I wanted. I said I was running for parliament. She said she would not open the door because two young teenagers had tried to break down her door the previous week while she was there. She broke down in tears. She could not sleep at night. She was concerned that they were going to come back. The police were called but the boys ran off. The police said that even if they had been arrested they would be back out on the street in a day or so.

I have seen the very real faces of people concerned by this. It is not just the Reform Party who are concerned about this. I read the comments of the Attorney General of British Columbia from the New Democratic Party who says that home invasion is a serious problem across the country and the federal government needs to take some leadership on it. He proposes, as do we, that there be a minimum Criminal Code offence for home invasion above and beyond the offence for breaking and entering, and that this be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There would be a higher sentence if this kind of home invasion is a factor in a crime that is committed.

I call on the government to listen to Canadians who are suffering from the growing number of home invasions. I urge government members to listen to the official opposition, listen to the provincial attorneys general. Bring in the kind of sentencing guidelines which would more seriously punish those who violate the privacy of innocent law-abiding Canadian citizens in their homes.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I guess she resembles that comment. I rise because, unlike the noisy and gutter raking, guttersniping parliamentary secretary opposite—

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on a criminal justice motion placed before the House by the official opposition. It raises the need for greater focus on reform of our criminal justice laws to make Canadians feel safer in their homes and in their neighbourhoods.

At the outset let me say how very disappointed I was to hear the shrill and extreme remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the attorney general. This morning she suggested that if the official opposition had its way Canada would be a country governed by vigilante justice where every individual would own a firearm.

I understand partisan differences and differences of opinions between members of this place. That is what serious democratic deliberation is all about. I find that kind of shrill, extreme demagogic rhetoric from a member beyond the pale of reasonable debate.

The member cackles across. She does herself a gross disservice by engaging in that kind of over the top, demagogic rhetoric by grossly mischaracterizing the legitimate and heartfelt concern of the members of the official opposition and the millions of Canadians we represent when it comes to the need for criminal justice reform.

I can have a disagreement with the parliamentary secretary and members of her party about how to weigh victims rights versus the rights of criminals, due process, sentencing and so forth. We can have legitimate arguments about these matters. That is what this parliament is for. I will not ascribe motives to that member and suggest she does not care about criminal justice. I know she does. I will not castigate this government as not caring about victims. I know it does. We have different approaches about how to defend the rights of victims. I will not countenance any member from any side of the House using that kind of extremist and shrill rhetoric we heard from that member this morning.

[Points Of Order, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period the Minister for International Trade indicated that the official opposition had no evidence to indicate that Canadian productivity had declined.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to table an annex from an OECD economic outlook, dated December 1998, which indicates that our total productivity factor has decreased by—

[The Economy, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the facts. The OECD says that Canada was the only G-7 country to see a reduction in its productivity between 1979 and 1997. It said that Canada's productivity performance used to place it among the top performers, but now it has fallen significantly.

We are going down while other countries are going up. Our dollar is at 65 cents, giving Canadians a lower standard of living.

How does this finance minister defend a bargain basement priced country when we should be growing and not shrinking our standard of living?

[The Economy, March 16th, 1999]

Sometimes the truth hurts, Mr. Speaker.

How can government members stand in their place to defend a 65 cent loonie? How can they defend giving Canadians a lower standard of living? When in opposition the finance minister said that the Canadian dollar should be 78 cents. How can he defend a 65 cent dollar when he is in government?

[The Economy, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government continues to make light of the fact that our dollar is declining, our standard of living is declining, our productivity is declining relative to other industrialized countries—

[Investment, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what we are putting down is a government that has given us a 65 cent dollar and the highest income tax burden in the OECD, a country whose per capita GDP is falling through the floor in the OECD and among other industrialized countries. Does the finance minister not understand that just as with a company, foreign investors look at the state of a country's debt and the value of its currency? They see a country with a 65 cent dollar.

Does the finance minister not recognize the 65 cent dollar he has given Canada is a sign that we are less competitive and have a diminishing standard of living in the world?

[Investment, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government is stuck in a fog of unreality. Every objective study from the OECD to Statistics Canada shows that Canadian productivity is falling.

The government is saying that we are more productive because it has slashed the value of the Canadian dollar and because it is now cheaper to buy goods from our overregulated, overtaxed economy. Devaluing our currency means foreign countries will take more goods off our hands. I am sure if the dollar were 50 cents or 10 cents we would do even better.

Does the finance minister not realize that selling our products and services for pennies on the dollar makes us all poor?