Debates of Nov. 18th, 1999

Division No. 54

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not answered my question. Does he not know that clause 18 provides for diversion programs? Has he not read the bill?

He has gone on at great length about youth justice committees. Diversion is provided for here. It was provided for in the other act. May he please respond.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Erie—Lincoln could take his earpiece out and listen closely. I told him once and I will tell him again. I am aware of youth diversion programs. Maybe he did not hear my statement that 10 and 11 year olds are not eligible to participate in those programs if they are not included in the legislation. He does not get it. The member, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, does not understand that basic fact.

Why is it that his group denied consent for me to table a report in this place on the youth diversion program that is working well in my riding? Why did they do that?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bear with me. I am battling a bit of a cold today, but when I found out that I had the opportunity to speak to this bill I decided I had better shake it off because I consider this bill, and this debate, and the whole concept of issues surrounding youth justice, to be almost a defining issue for the country. How we deal with our young people in trouble, our youth at risk, really says a tremendous amount about the country as a society and our values.

It is quite interesting to hear members of the Reform Party speak to this issue. I think their views provide a total contrast to what most Canadians believe is necessary and will work in dealing with youth at risk or youth involved in crime.

The contrast is that if they rename or change the title of this bill, I think they would call it the youth revenge bill as opposed to the youth justice bill.

Everything we hear from that side of the House has to do with getting revenge. If we have a justice system for any age in this country that is based on revenge, I would suggest that the distance we have come as a caring society would change dramatically. We would go back 50 to 100 years to an era when that was all people thought about; if someone committed a crime there would be revenge.

What is absolutely astounding is that most members of that party come from a part of the country where people believe in the Bible.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

A bunch of dinosaurs.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

They come from a part of this country that is based in Christian belief.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

They want to cane them.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

They come from a part of this country where they know that the Lord says in the Bible—

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules of the House require specifically that there be no aspersion of motive that is not right to other members. This member and the member beside him are engaging in that big time. I ask that you call upon them to withdraw those untruths and start dealing correctly here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As all members are aware, it is absolutely strictly prohibited for one member to cast aspersion on another member directly. If a member in debate may have cast aspersion upon the intentions of another political party, that is traditionally, at least in my experience, something which happens every day. If the hon. member for Mississauga West is of the opinion that his words were casting aspersion on a specific member, I would ask that they be withdrawn.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mention any specific member in my remarks. I am mentioning a party that has had members stand in the House to talk about their ideas and the principles of their party. They have principles, and they say if we do not like them they have others.

In any event, it is the belief that stems from the Reform Party that I was talking about. I believe that its members believe that revenge is the primary motivating factor.

As I was about to say before I was interrupted, in the Bible, which the members would know better than I, “Revenge is mine” sayeth the Lord. Revenge does not belong in the control of the state. Revenge does not belong as a legal tool in any piece of legislation.

Members of the Reform Party are attempting to divert what we are trying to do here. If you want a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the nonsense and the antics that go on, it would be the opposition failing to show up this morning, trying to not allow a quorum. The opposition members have already said that unless they get a national referendum on the Nisga'a treaty—one of the most important pieces of legislation and one of the most important treaties in this country—unless we agree to some cockamamie national vote on the Nisga'a treaty, they will stop every bill they can. They will delay. They will use whatever tactics as a party they can.

The Canadian people should know that. Canadians should know that when the opposition members parade around on the front steps of parliament hill in Mexican sombreros, it is a sad sight to see. When they drive around the precinct in an antique car painted with a Canadian flag, it is a sad sight. It almost desecrates the Canadian flag. That is the kind of attitude that they bring to the House.

The member who spoke previously, I thought, was being very thoughtful until our parliamentary secretary rose to ask him if he had read the bill. Instead of answering, “Yes, I have read the bill”, he started on a rant about child pornography.

There is a clear attempt in every case in this place to mislead the Canadian public about the position of the government or the position of an individual member, such as the parliamentary secretary.

The government has said: “We abhor child pornography. We abhor the decision made in British Columbia by a provincial court”.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

You don't do anything about it.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

You guys are fearmongers, fearmongering dinosaurs.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Now they are chirping away, saying that we did not do anything. The truth is, we are appealing that decision. The Supreme Court of Canada and the system of justice in this country were put in place to allow anyone to appeal a decision with which they do not agree.

The government has taken the stand to appeal it. Would it be more effective to have an act of parliament revoke the notwithstanding clause, or invoke the notwithstanding clause, to say that it does not agree with the court decision? Or, would it be more effective to actually have the supreme court analyse the decision and take a look at what possible rational a judge sitting on a bench in British Columbia could have, a part of this country that I dare say members opposite should know better than?

What possible justification could a justice have? We would presume that the individual has knowledge of the law. We would presume that the individual has integrity. We would presume that the individual looked at the case carefully, but he came down with a decision that said it was okay to own child pornography. I do not know a Canadian citizen that agrees with that decision.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I heard the hon. member correctly, I think he said something about my colleague having deliberately misled the Canadian people and the House by making some of the statements he made. I do not think it is correct to ever cast—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, I was listening very carefully. That was not the impression I got from what he said. There is no question that the member for Mississauga West is accusing the opposition, and specific members of the opposition, of misleading the Canadian public as to the government's intention.

I do not think a white glove debate is taking place. I suspect this is probably part of the debate that takes place here day in and day out, from one side to the other. It is casting aspersions on individual, specific members that is not countenanced. I do not think casting aspersions on the motives of other political parties is something that is particularly untoward in our system of government.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the sensitivity of members opposite. The fact is that the truth hurts a bit from time to time. All they want to do is rise on points of order so they can muzzle me. That is their intent. Frankly they do not like what I say, and I do not really give a darn if they like what I say. I do not say it to please them. I say it to point out a counterargument to what they claim the government is doing.

It is just not true that we have done nothing about that decision in British Columbia. It is just not true. If a political party can stand in the House or out in the community and continue to perpetrate a fraud, I do not understand how they could possibly object to my pointing that out.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has directly said that members here are not telling the truth. He has said that directly. He has said that the party stands up here. There is no party in the House; there are members in the House. We stand up as members. I demand that he withdraw that. What he is saying is untrue.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we can keep doing this all day. I would point out something that was said in the House by the previous speaker, and I am talking directly about that member. I would point out that I disagree. I consider his comments to be perhaps unfortunately inaccurate. He said that the government had not listened to any of the amendments put forward by other members in the House.

We all know the tragic story of the member for Surrey North. We know the heartache that he feels and we all reach out to him for the loss he has suffered. As a result of his input, and I just want to share this, other provisions in the bill would permit harsher penalties for adults who wilfully fail to comply with an undertaking made to the court to supervise youths who have been denied bail and placed in their care by permitting prosecution as either a summary or indictable offence. This measure responds to a proposal made by the member for Surrey North.

I do not know how we could be more clear. We have listened to that member in committee. We have listened to that member speak in the House. We know his pain and we think he put forward a good idea. If an adult is charged with the responsibility of supervising a young offender and that the young offender is allowed to go home under that person's supervision by court order, and if the adult individual decides to go to Florida or somewhere and leaves the young offender alone then the adult will pay a price for it. I think that is just. Clearly the government is listening to the member opposite who brought a real life tragedy into this place and into the bill. Members can stand if they want, but what the member said is inaccurate because there is a change in the bill which addresses that issue.

I want to talk about the age issue. Somehow we should lower the age to below 14 for young offenders to be dealt with under the new youth justice act. Somehow we should go to 10 year olds.

My wife Katie and I have raised three sons. My boys are 24, 27 and almost 29. It is hard to believe, as young as I look. Having raised those young boys I have had many other young boys around and young girls now, thankfully. If parents have not placed their values in young children by the age of seven, I believe they have lost it. I do not believe that once they get past seven parents will have a tremendous influence. I am talking about basic core values: what is right and what is wrong. If others believe that I suppose we could say we should lower the age to eight or seven.

The opposition party tries to deal only with the sensational crimes, and we know them. We saw a tragic beating in a Toronto park last week. Ten or twelve young people unconscionably beat a young boy to death. What in God's name goes through their minds? It is like a pack of animals. How they can do that is not something any of us can understand. We saw what happened in Taber, Alberta. We saw a young girl beaten to death by other young girls.

There is no question that there is a problem in society, but to use debate on this bill simply to sensationalize and appeal perhaps to the more red neck element in society is disgraceful. The bill is allowing for violent young offenders to be dealt with in adult court. Do we want eight year old kids put into jail or put into the arms of the police?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Who said that?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I hear the hon. member. Ten year olds then. I admit that the age is 10, but I use my analogy that I believe the age of seven is the age where parents have put into place the basic necessary feelings, understandings and moral values. If others believe that then the age could be lowered to eight, but what kind of society would we have?

In spite of the terrible shooting in Alberta and the murder in Toronto, the vast majority of young offenders do not commit murder. They do not commit attempted murder or manslaughter or aggravated assault or rape. They commit crimes which make us wonder where they are headed.

Having raised three young boys myself, as I said, there were many times when I wondered where their heads were. It almost seems from about the age of 12 or 13 to about 22 that the brain stops functioning, at least in relationship to the parent, but somehow we get through that. We battle through and hope that what they were taught from birth to seven years old will get them through. We hope they will not make mistakes.

There are many examples of kids who have made those kinds of mistakes. I believe that we have to base, and this bill does it, the justice system for young people on compassion, not revenge. We have to base it on rehabilitation, not revenge. We have to base it on the hope and belief that a young person who offends or who reoffends is more likely to be rehabilitated than an adult and that there must be differences. Yet we feel rage as a society when a young person commits a horrible crime.

I remember being in England when a young child, almost a baby, was found beaten to death on the railway tracks in London. It turned out that two other almost babies had committed the crime. I have said in this place before that my brother-in-law, who is an Englishman, says that when the babies start killing babies we have a problem.

Do we put those babies into a youth justice system? Do we somehow tell the police they will have to deal with these people? What about parents? What about the education system? What about supporting children's aid? Foster parents are heroes for the work they do in society because while there are exceptions where young offenders come from good families very often young offenders come from broken families. Young offenders will be abused young people.

I read the newspaper account of the women from the Grandview Home for Girls in the Toronto papers yesterday. They received an apology from the attorney general of the province of Ontario for the abuse. They are in their forties, fifties and sixties. The oldest one is even in her seventies. She talked about when she was taken into custody, put into a cell, stripped naked at the age of 13 and raped. She cried and sobbed uncontrollably with the friends and family who were there.

How do we correct that kind of damage and abuse that occurs from that kind of damage? We can apologize. The attorney general for the province of Ontario did a great thing by standing in that place to correct a wrong that happened many years ago. I am frankly ashamed to say we did not do that when I was in the Ontario legislature. We should have apologized to those women. Those women cried and said the one thing that moved them to tears was that members of the provincial legislature were actually looking at them as people, not just statistics.

That is the one thing about the youth justice bill that I think is so important. We can look at statistics. We can make law based on an age differential of 14 or 12 or 10 or 8, but we have to look at individual cases. We have to understand what it is that drives a young person to actually commit murder or aggravated assault. I understand what drives them to steal something out of a store, shoplift or something like that. It is just a lack of proper functioning at the time. Maybe it seems like a lark. It is not something society can accept, but those issues can and will be dealt with under the legislation because those kids will not go through the court system but, rather, will be dealt with at the community level.

It is at the community level that we can help our young people, whether it is through children's aid, the education systems, church groups, or perhaps through providing counselling for parents. We can say to parents that their youngster has a serious problem, that their youngster is violating what we believe to be important in this country and we want it stopped.

The changes in the bill will make this a more humane and more accountable piece of legislation for our young offenders and for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to questions and comments, it was brought to my attention earlier that the member for Mississauga West indicated that a specific member had deliberately misled the House. I did not hear it but others have suggested that they did.

If this is the case, I ask the hon. member for Mississauga West to withdraw his remarks. If it is not the case, we will just proceed. However, rather than go through the blues, I know the member for Mississauga West would not want to leave that on the record.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that he misled. What I said was that I believe the statement he made was inaccurate and I wanted to correct it and I read from the bill to do that. I did not accuse him of misleading this place.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand why the member for Mississauga West is criticizing the Reform members. The bill before us this morning is Reform policy that the government has put into the text of a law.

Who in this House called for the publication of the names of the young offenders, as we currently see in Bill C-3? The Reform members. Who in this House wanted young offenders referred as often as possible to adult court? The Reform members. Who in this House called for harsher sentences and greater repression for young people? The Reform members.

I cannot understand why the Liberal member is attacking the Reform Party. This is the very policy that the Minister of Justice has included in the bill, a policy that has been tested and that does not work. This policy has been tested in Quebec, and there is universal agreement that it does not work.

Rehabilitation is the way to go. Nothing in the bill will encourage the other provinces, which are not enforcing the Young Offenders Act in its present form anyway, to enforce the new legislation. In addition, it will cost millions of dollars to implement this new bill, when Quebec has been enforcing the legislation for the past 16 years, with convincing results, very good results.

Under pressure from western Canada, the Minister of Justice has scrapped the old act and drafted a new one. These are not amendments—let us strike this word from our vocabulary—to the Young Offenders Act. This is really a new act entitled the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is a complete change of vocabulary and a complete change of philosophy.

The government may think that this bill is about public safety, but it is mistaken. In the long run, Canada and Quebec will pay for the amendments that have just been introduced. When young offenders re-enter society, they will not be anonymous citizens the way they are today when the existing Young Offenders Act is enforced the way it was intended to be and funds are made available, as they are by Quebec.

I think that the member opposite does not know what he is talking about. I think that he has not even read Bill C-3 and I definitely think that he has not looked at the differences that exist between today's young offenders system and Bill C-3. What I heard this morning was shocking.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, only a member of the Bloc could turn this into a Quebec against the rest of the country issue. I do appreciate the fact that the member has stated that the province of Quebec is having some success in dealing with its young offenders. I congratulate the province for doing that. In fact, the bill does allow for a great deal of flexibility so that all provinces, not just the province of Quebec, will be able to deal with it in the context of their own justice system.

Let me deal with the issue of publishing names. It was not the Reform Party that convinced me that we should do this. It was my constituents. Frankly, long before I got to this place, I believe people felt that when young offenders commit what we would define as an adult crime and are referred to the adult court system, why would they not then be dealt with in the same way that an adult would be dealt with?

Let us be clear, we are not talking about publishing the names of all young offenders. We are talking about publishing the names, in the normal course of the justice system, of those young offenders who are dealt with in the adult system. These are people who would have committed murder, attempted murder, aggravated assaults or serious crimes against individuals and society, and that is why the names will be published.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite makes all kinds of interesting comments. He is obviously a very learned individual and one who is able to twist words, to twist meanings and to make things appear different from what they really are. I think it is a rather negative thing when somebody does that.

There is one point he made that I want to commend him for. It was not directly related to the act, but it does have to do with the overall operation of the House. He did suggest in his speech that the Nisga'a bill was a very important bill that put into law the Nisga'a treaty. He said that it was really very important and implied that it would affect all of Canada.

Why then would the hon. member not support a referendum? If it will affect virtually everyone and our tax dollars are involved, our operations are involved and the local government is involved as well, why would he refuse a referendum?