Steve Mahoney

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually quite interesting to listen to the cries of great indignation from members opposite. The left side of the spectrum does not suggest anything in the form of a positive debate in relationship to the air security charge. It just simply criticizes without putting forward some substantive alternatives. I have not heard anyone give an alternative.

I think we all know we are here tonight debating amendments to the budget bill that was introduced several months ago. We now find ourselves in a position where we have to vote on amendments that do absolutely nothing other than stall, delay and allow members opposite to get up and tell people about issues that have no relationship whatsoever to the budget bill.

Do we want a delay? A debate in parliament would be interesting if we focused on the issue instead of the government being put in a position where, to actually implement changes to the budget, the savings to the taxpayer and the reduction in taxation to Canadians, we have no alternative but to introduce time allocation.

Why would that be? One would think that the members opposite would want the government to get on with a bill that introduces dramatic savings for the taxpayer. As an example of that savings, a two earner family of four with an income of $60,000 would save $1,000 in federal taxes this year. That is a reduction of 18%.

Am I being told in this place that people on the opposite side do not want taxpayers to get those savings? A one earner family of four earning $40,000 would pay $1,100 less in taxes and by 2004 this family would pay almost $2,000 less in tax, a 59% reduction in the amount of taxation that those hard-working Canadians would have to pay.

What we hear from colleagues opposite is just constant criticism instead of getting on with the implementation of a budget bill that would return money directly into the pockets of Canadians.

While we are on the issue of taxation, let me suggest that there is more than one way to reduce the tax burden or expense burden on hard-working Canadians.

Interest rates, for example, were reduced by about 3.5% last year. A reduction of 3.5% means quite a lot to a family seeking a mortgage of $100,000. A one hundred thousand dollar mortgage in my community does not buy much, but in many parts of the country it does. The annual mortgage payments on a $100,000 as a result of the reduction in the interest rates, which are clearly a result of the sound fiscal policies that this finance minister and the government have implemented over the past several years, will cost $2,200 less to carry than it would have one year ago.

Is that a tax reduction? No, not directly, but it sure makes a heck of a difference to a couple raising a family and trying to buy a home. To a small business, a loan of $250,000 will cost $9,000 a year less than it would have cost one year ago. Is that a direct tax reduction? Obviously it is not. However, on the cashflow and the bottom line of that small business or on the monthly budgeting of that family trying to buy their first home, these are real hard savings. This is money in their pockets.

We are debating whether or not there should be an air security charge instead of getting on with returning to hard working Canadians the money that they have earned and are paying in high interest rates, high carrying costs or taxes. As I say, there is more than one way to skin that particular cat.

I hear members opposite say that only Liberals can make this draconian budget, as they refer to it, sound good. Let me share some of the benefits that have come about as a result of the budget.

There is $24 million over two years to support sector councils. A sector council is a group of people from business and labour. They have been put together to deliver training programs on the ground to people who are working but are seeking to upgrade their skills or people who are trying to enter the job force, be it through an apprenticeship program, through organized labour or a community college.

These sector councils have been created in the province of Ontario, for example, because the federal government has been unable to enter into a labour market development agreement with the province. Obviously it is the largest province and the one with the greatest need for this kind of training and skills development, yet we have been unable to get an agreement from the Government of Ontario. We had to find an alternative way of ensuring that the training dollars actually get to the men and women who need them. The sector councils are a good way of doing that.

There have been concerns expressed in some areas that those sector councils are not totally funneling the training money to the union halls and places where some of the training takes place. That is a concern but it is not a budget concern or a concern for this particular debate. It is something we need to work out with HRDC, the province of Ontario and the sector councils.

Another item in the budget is a $10 million a year increase to improve support for persons with disabilities who pursue higher education. A member opposite rails against the government because of our treatment of people with disabilities. There is a clear commitment to people with disabilities in the form of tax breaks. We should get on with implementing the bill so that the money can flow to the people who need it.

There is $15 million a year to encourage the acquisition of trade skills. As my youngest son is currently studying to become a carpenter and is working with the carpenters union in the greater Toronto area, I think this is incredibly important.

The immigration committee deals with the issue of the types of people we want as new immigrants. One of the suggestions I have made is that a skilled tradesperson should be treated the same as a university graduate. In determining their eligibility to come to this country, people in the trades who have bona fide certificates saying they are pipefitters, steamfitters, carpenters, electricians and on down the list should get the same number of points as people who have bachelor of arts degrees. I am confident that is going to happen.

Something which has not been given a lot of attention in terms of the budget is that $13.5 million has been put in place to help young entrepreneurs. Through the Shad Valley program for kids going on to university and through the Canadian Youth Business Foundation dollars will be matched to create a pool of $26 million that will be made available for start up costs. This will help young Canadian entrepreneurs fulfill the dreams many of them have about building their own businesses.

On balance, the budget clearly sets out a direction that is positive for the economy and positive for all Canadians. Members opposite know it but they just will not admit it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for a former member of a cabinet of a provincial government who held a justice portfolio that claim is quite remarkable.

Perhaps the member was not here, but I said in my speech that the amendment would bring the bill into line with Canada's criminal code. If the member cares to look it up, paragraph 718.2( e ) of the criminal code requires that alternatives to custody be considered for all young people, particularly aboriginal youth.

The hon. member represents a constituency where there would be substantial involvement with aboriginal youth. He would know as well as anyone in this place that there is a problem and we need to help our aboriginal youth break the cycle. That is what I believe the bill would do.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I apologize. I say through you to the members opposite: Is that the solution for dealing with young people? I had thought the province of Quebec was more interested in a system that would provide rehabilitation and community based services to help young people.

I see the member shaking his head. I am not sure what that means. Either he believes in helping young people through rehabilitation and community support or he believes in putting them in jail like the Canadian Alliance does. I sure do not support that.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me first assure the hon. member that if I were still at Queen's Park it is highly unlikely I would be in support of the government of Ontario's position given that it is led by the hon. Mike Harris. I have seldom found myself in agreement with Mr. Harris or his party's policies.

In my home I receive the householder of the hon. Rob Sampson who is minister of corrections for the province and happens to be my MPP. I found it rather disgraceful that he was using it for political purposes to slam the Young Offenders Act and put forward the kind of misinformation we have heard today from certain opposition members about the nature of the bill. It was blatant use of a householder document to communicate with constituents to put forth a partisan view.

The member may think I do not understand the bill, but because we do not agree does not mean I do not understand it. I do. In the case of Quebec it is clear that flexibility is there. Contrary to the government of Quebec's claims, the bill would offer substantial flexibility to allow Quebec to maintain its approach to youth justice. Having said that, the member should know Quebec transferred 23 youths to adult court in 1998-99, making it the province with the second highest number of such transfers that year.

I turn to the hon. member and his caucus and ask, is this your solution to the Young Offenders Act?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's passion and feelings about the bill. I would say to him and the aboriginal community that the amendment to the bill today says custody should not be the first choice.

If we are dealing with repeat offenders, violent murders, manslaughter, rape and those kinds of issues I am quite confident our justice system will see fit to hand out adult sentences and publish names. That is what the bill calls for. The people the hon. member mentioned should take comfort in the fact that it will happen.

However the amendment says that in most cases dealing with young offenders we are not talking about murder, manslaughter or rape. It says that when these crimes come before the justice system we should look at alternatives like working in the community and finding ways to rehabilitate and help these young people because putting them in jail and incarcerating them is not the first choice. That is all it says. I have confidence that our judicial system will judge accordingly.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if Canadian Alliance members want to stand up and say that they are not abdicating that the criteria for the determination of a young offender be established at age 10, I am willing to listen to that. However that is not what I have heard from Canadian Alliance members in this place. I have heard people over on that side of the House say that there is nothing wrong with taking a block of wood to the backside of a youngster as it will teach him or her something.

I just heard another member stand in his place and say that we should take a look at what we did 50 years ago, that out on the prairies things were not so bad back then, that maybe we could go back there and figure out what we were doing right; and that no matter whether we were dealing with aboriginal youth or dealing with other youth in this country that we should take a look at what went on 50 years ago.

I heard a really interesting quote the other day at committee by the new minister of immigration who said that there was a reason the front windshield in a car was bigger than the rearview mirror. He said that it was because we were looking forward, not backward.

It is so typical for a member of the official opposition to stand and say that the way we did it 50 years ago was the right way and that we should go back there. That clearly shows a lack of understanding of the problems that our youth face every day in this modern day world; the problems that confront them with young people, perhaps their peers, leading them astray; the availability of drugs; and the violence we have seen in our schools. Does anyone honestly think we should be going back 50 years to a policy, one which has been supported by members of the official opposition, that encourages the use of a cane as a disciplinary tool to whip our youngsters into shape?

This is the new millennium. Dinosaurs have no place in establishing the justice system, the rule of law and the way in which young people need to be dealt with. That is what we have been hearing from the opposite side and what we have been hearing all along.

If we were to agree to use age ten as the criteria for defining a young offender--and I am not suggesting that we would do that in a minute--I suspect that the official opposition would say that maybe it should be eight, seven--where do we stop this--or maybe it should be six.

What do we do when we put a 10, 11, 12, 14 or even 15 year old in jail with adults? Let me tell the House what we do. We create an incubating system for a full-fledged adult criminal to be abused and to learn what it is like to be a criminal. Is that what we want to do? Obviously not on this side of the House.

I reject the implication that somehow we on this side of the House are being forced by a government whip or a Prime Minister to vote for a bill. I categorically reject that. The bill would give an opportunity for young people to see rehabilitation efforts in the community. Why should that not happen? Should we put them in jail?

I have heard members opposite say that three strikes and they are out and that we should throw away the key. That is just terrific modern thinking on how to deal with our young people.

We want rehabilitation. We know statistically that Canada, on a per capita basis, puts more young people in jail than any other country in the west. We lead the way in that. That is shameful. Putting them in jail is not the way to solve youth crime. This is not about punishment. This is about rehabilitation and about saving lives.

The other thing I want to stress is that at no time have we talked in terms of young people who commit murder or rape. When we talk about the most serious aggravated assaults, the bill would allow those young people to receive an adult sentence but not be tried in an adult court. It would allow those young people to have representation in a youth court, with a clear recommendation and a clear judgment that an adult sentence should be imposed in those situations.

The bill would also do something that has been a major battle within our own ranks on this side of the House. In a situation where a young person is at large and is deemed to be a risk to the community, the name can be published so that the community can be aware that there might be a problem.

Those are positive steps that will offer a balance of protecting the community, giving people an opportunity to be aware of certain problems and, at the same time, not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

We have all witnessed some terrible tragedies. I cannot remember the name, but I recall the young baby who was beaten to death in England and thrown on the railroad tracks by two young children who were well under 10; I think they were 7 or 8 years old. The two children were arrested and actually convicted. In fact they have been in rehabilitation and in the care of the state for some time as a result of that.

My brother-in-law who lives in England made a comment at that time. He said that we know society is in trouble when the babies begin to kill the babies. We all abhor this. It is unimaginable. We cannot explain how a child can take a small child away from his parents and beat the child to death. It is just not within our power to conceive how that could happen. However the reality is that it has happened.

Does that mean we simply take those young children and lock them away? There has to be a better system. It is a tragedy for families on both sides: the victims as well as those who are found guilty.

I recall a story in my own community in Streetsville many years ago where a young man was killed in a brawl outside a bar. A group taunted this young man. Somehow pushing and shoving took place and all of a sudden someone shot their foot through--as they say, shot the boot through--and as he did so the youngster fell, hit his head and it killed him. It was an unbelievable tragedy. There were calls in Mississauga at that time for capital punishment. That was the solution.

Interestingly enough, in my days on municipal council I served on a body called the licensing review board. We had to review whether or not someone should have their licence revoked or reinstated after revocation. Lo and behold, before us appeared a young man with a lawyer who had just got out of jail having served 18 months for manslaughter. We were astounded. How does one serve 18 months for manslaughter? Our committee of three was given a copy of the pre-sentencing report. It was the exact case, a very high profile case, in Streetsville where the young man had been killed and we had before us the person who was convicted of manslaughter in that death.

We were being asked at the municipal level to return a licence for a particular type of vehicle to this young man. It was an astounding experience to find out that this was the person involved in that death. When we read the pre-sentencing report, all three of us on the committee understood that there was clearly a victim who could never be brought back and that was a tragedy, but the remorse shown by the young man who was involved in an altercation that led to a terrible incident, was very clear. What was also clear was that the young man had a family. He had a wife and two children. They had to move out of Mississauga to another city in Ontario to continue with their lives, and the young man simply wanted to get on with his.

He was a young offender when the incident occurred. He came back and was going out to work. The committee recognized that the anger in the community would be negative enough that it would be unproductive, that it would be a bad move to simply reinstate the licence in our city, and so we made other arrangements for that individual to get a job in another city in the province.

Should we have shown that kind of compassion? Some would argue, perhaps the family members of the victim—the young man who was kicked in the head and died—with some understanding, frankly, from me and others, that we should not have shown that compassion. However when we are faced with the actual information and know the entire story, it puts a different spin on it and gives us a different perspective.

I am proud to say that I think we did the right thing. We showed the compassion and helped the young man get on with his life.

One of the things we want to stress again is that we are interested in preventing crime and working with young people. Will we be able to prevent crimes by incarcerating young people? There are instances when incarceration may be the only thing we can do, but that should not be the first decision made when dealing with a young person in trouble with the law.

I believe the bill offers a balance. The balance is to work toward preventing crime and to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into the community, with a requirement, upon reintegration, that there be some community support.

Let us imagine young people who have been sentenced to prison for about two or three years. When they get out they are probably still only 16, 17 or 18 years old. Do we just turn them out into the community and leave them entirely on their own? The bill allows for and insists upon community support. It makes absolute sense.

There are many tremendous groups: church groups; NGOs; groups that work with new immigrants and that can work with youth; and the John Howard Society. Many different organizations are dedicated to helping young people get on with their lives. This is the positive aspect of the bill.

It is interesting to hear members opposite say that we are going too fast in invoking closure. I heard a speaker just a few moments ago say that the government has been debating this issue for eight years and that he has been following it and has been involved in it.

We know that for three years both the House of Commons and Senate committees have held hearings. Every time the bill has comes forward so far it seems to have fallen off the table for one reason or another. This time it will not. This time the amendment will carry, not because Liberals are being whipped but because Liberals believe this is just, this is fair and this is legislation that is overdue and about time.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am really quite fascinated by some of the debate that has gone on in here on this bill. I want to address a couple of the issues that deal with the amendment.

It is a sad thing to see someone playing a race card in this place in an attempt to obfuscate or confuse or to send out a message that somehow the government, through an amendment coming from the Senate, is showing particular favoritism toward one group or another, in this case aboriginal youth.

I know the speakers who have suggested that it is a race issue know better. For example, I know the previous speaker is a lawyer. That member would know, having worked in the criminal system, that this amendment deals with a requirement to consider non-custodial sentences for aboriginal youth. If someone reads that in its own context and does not know the law, maybe one would assume that it was indeed racist. However, if one knows the Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 718.2(e) of the criminal code requires that alternatives to custody be considered for all young people, particularly aboriginal youth.

That already exists in the criminal code. The amendment comes from the Senate. After having looked at this, the Senate, in doing its job of sober second thought and reviewing it, has said there is a problem because this bill does not totally match up to that section of the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore it has recommended an amendment that would bring it in line with the criminal code.

To say that somehow this creates special status or is racist is nothing more than political opportunism and misrepresents an issue in attempting to speak to the factions existing in the country that might indeed be prejudiced against aboriginal people or might feel this was in some way a racist remark. To actually know the facts and understand the truth, yet to portray this as something it is not is politicking at the lowest possible level Frankly, I find it shameful.

Let me deal as well with the accusations that somehow government members are not listening or that because we are dealing with time allocation, which gets turned around and put under the guise of closure, that we are being whipped into shape. Earlier one member said that we should not be punished by the party and that if 40 of us were to stand up and vote against the amendment, the Prime Minister would not punish 40 of us because of the size and the sheer fact of it being 40 people.

Let me assure that member that were I to vote the way that member wishes, which is against the amendment and the bill, I would not be punished by the Prime Minister. No amount of punishment on this side of the House could cause me any concern. However I would be punished by my own conscience. I would be punished as I laid awake at night and thought that I had listened to this argument and voted that way.

The member should not confuse the fact that the Liberal caucus will support the government in the bill. He or anyone else in this place should not confuse the fact that what we believe in is in the bill. I can respect the fact that certain members in this place do not support the bill, but what could we possibly do to get that support.

We know there is some flexibility within the bill that allows the provinces to adjust the age of the young people with whom we are dealing to be either 14 or 16. We know the province of Quebec thinks the bill is too tough and the province of Ontario thinks the bill is not tough enough.

We also know the Canadian Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform Party of Canada, have stated in this place that they believe the age should be lowered to 10, and we should be putting the kids jail. We understand their position on that.

How could we arrive at a consensus? If we were to soften the bill, I would suspect that members of the Bloc Quebecois caucus would simply adjust their positioning to say that we did not go far enough. If we were to toughen the bill and somehow put all these young people who come into conflict with the law in an adult prison, then I believe the provinces--

[Health Care, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago Mike Harris and the other premiers signed the health accord with the federal government allocating $23 billion in new health care funding. They said that it was a good deal then but now it is not enough.

The province of Ontario has seen increases in federal transfers over the last five years from 22% of their total program spending to 27% today.

The provincial finance minister thinks we should use the deferred small business tax instalments to fund health care. Tory logic, deferred money is new money. This is an initiative to help small business with their cashflow, not to allow for an increase to the Harris Tories.

They just do not get it. In 2001-02, federal transfers are providing $1.1 billion of the $1.2 billion increase in Ontario health care spending. The provincial health minister threatens to take drug money away from seniors, while at the same time giving tax cuts while in deficit and issuing $200 rebate cheques. Then they cry poor. Canadians know better.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that this member is in support of the government and supports over half the pieces of legislation that come into this place, but in the theatre that is politics around here we all know that the opposition is trying to find ways to twist things in terms of the government's priorities. It is a consistent message that we have seen from both the current party and its predecessor.

If that leads to partisan differences then so be it, but the reality is that our government is committed. We already have announced a reduction in EI premiums, putting some $400 million back into the hands of workers and companies. That is an additional cut from the time we took office. We are committed to lower taxes. We have already have announced all that, the member knows it full well and I am pleased that he supports it.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I heard two questions, one on why did I not address the motion. I thought I did. I clearly said that the opposition parties tend to want to talk in terms of generalities by saying to slash low priority spending and increase high priority spending, but their priorities change all the time.

I pointed out that at one time that party, or the ghost of that party, supported the slashing of defence spending. Now of course it is high in popularity that it be increased. This points out exactly what I said. I said that they would cut ACOA, as an example, in Atlantic Canada. Now what did they say about western diversification: kaput? They are saying to shoot, destroy and get rid of western diversification.

This is the kind of attitude they have instead of recognizing the good work and the value of HRDC and all the economic development agencies we have in the country, and there are only a few. They should get on the ground and talk to the people who benefit from those programs. This is exactly why that party will never be elected to govern this great land. It does not understand the importance of these diversified programs right across the land.