Steve Mahoney

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost incredulous and astounding. I thought we were dealing with the young offenders situation, the new bill for Canadian youth justice.

My hon. friend's party's official name is the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party or something like that. I did not know we were dealing with their views on gun control. How could a party with any credibility whatsoever stand up, speaker after speaker, to talk about all these issues as if they somehow cause youth crime?

How could members in the House stand by statements made by a member that kids did not shoot up schools before gun control? We are supposed to extrapolate from that twisted logic that somehow the minute we brought in gun control and Charlton Heston was busy writing their policy manuals, kids ran out and obtained guns because of gun control and started shooting their peers in class. That is just bizarre.

It demonstrates the major difference between the government and the opposition. If they want to lay the blame for gun control at my feet, they can lay it at my feet. They can put it on my shoulders and I will stand truly tall and proud. I will say that Canadians want and believe in gun control. They do not believe in the American style system as espoused by Charlton Heston and other people like some members opposite.

I heard nothing about youth justice in that question and I think the bill addresses many of the deficiencies in youth justice.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that are obvious when we debate young offenders. The summary of the bill suggests that we want to try to increase public confidence in the youth justice system. One of the difficulties with that is there are certain crimes that occur in society that we take greater offence with than others. We had a debate in the House on the sex offender registry and there can be no crime more repugnant than that.

When young people get into trouble with the law, they cannot be named and they appear to get a slap on the wrist, headlines scream. People get upset and the flames get fanned. We get the impression that the Young Offenders Act, which the bill is designed to replace, will not solve the problems. Young people will be running amok committing crimes, raping, pillaging, murdering and building a society that will fall apart.

The reality is that the vast majority of young people who commit crimes do not commit rape, assault, aggravated assault, attempted murder or murder. Surely to goodness we can arrive at an agreement on that. The vast majority of young people who do commit crimes, commit crimes that need to be dealt with seriously but dealt with in some new creative way rather than just punishment. We as a society should perhaps look at solutions on how to properly rehabilitate.

A member opposite spoke about a young offender in western Canada who had been charged with 85 car thefts. That is absurd and absolutely ridiculous. We need to find out why that is happening. We need to put a system in place that would allow society to address the problems that this young person is obviously having.

Perhaps we could agree that many of the people who commit youth crimes have other problems. They may have been abused or they may have grown up in a less than supportive family. There is no justification by any means, but perhaps there is an explanation as to why the young person went against the law. That is not what we talk about in this place. We talk about throwing away the key after three strikes.

I will check Hansard but I made notes on one of the speeches made by a member who quoted from a study. It stated that kids did not shoot up schools before gun control. He quoted another study that said that kids who have been taught how to use guns show more maturity and better attitudes. The member went on to say that there are programs being recommended by himself and others that would teach our kids how to kill an animal. They believe that it will somehow teach our young people the consequences of pulling the trigger.

Let me be clear here. I have nothing against hunting whatsoever. My oldest son, much to my amazement, hunts bears with a bow and arrow. I do not know how in the world he ever got into that, but he loves it and he is a good sportsman. He will go out with a gun with some friends and hunt for deer at the appropriate time. There is no background of that in my family, but that is his choice. I have no difficulty whatsoever with that practice.

I also recognize that hunting is an activity. That was the point that I was trying to make for the hon. member. It was the same issue as involving a young person in any organized activity. However, to suggest that gun control in some perverse way is preventing hunting clubs and other organizations from organizing hunting expeditions or taking young people out and teaching them how to target shoot is just absurd.

If that is what people in some parts of rural Canada want to do to get their children involved in an activity, by all means. The difference is that under gun control they will be using a weapon that is registered. Is that awful? Maybe that would also teach them that it is no big deal and that maybe their parents should get over that fact.

I heard an hon. member say that he had heard some language that he could not imagine, that he had never heard before. I am sitting here thinking, what could they have said? We know all of the big bad words. I raised three boys and, as a result of that, I had the wonderful opportunity and privilege of having young children around our house all the time. We were involved in all the different activities in the community. I am afraid I have to admit that the odd time we may have heard something a little stronger than ah, shucks come out of the mouths of some of these young competitive individuals.

Did any of them go astray? We had young children come through our lives who got into trouble with the law, who may have been mixed up in some drugs. Fortunately in most of the cases that I have seen the services have been there in the community. Whether it was through the home, church, school, social services or working with the police, the services have been there in the community to help these young children get their lives back together again.

I almost sit and marvel at the naiveté of some members who say they have never heard bad language like that. The society our children have grown up in is dramatically different from our own. Times were fairly simple for those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s compared to what these young children go through today.

Today everything is instantaneous. There is instant gratification. They watch the news at night or play video games and they see the violence. These are realities. Are we supposed to put our young people in cocoons and say that they will never be exposed to any of these kinds of problems? Are we supposed to dwell on the fact, as one member opposite did, that somehow it was different in our day? Of course it was different in our day. That is why we need to change the bill.

If young offenders get charged with serious violent crimes, should we name them? Should we put their picture on the front page? I think not. The bill would not allow that to happen. However, if they are convicted of a crime and they in turn receive an adult sentence, to be served in a youth facility, because there is absolutely no sense in putting young convicted criminals together with adult criminals as we would simply turn out an adult criminal, or if they have escaped and are considered dangerous, then their names could be publicized. Simply throwing their names out, destroying their lives, and then finding out that they are innocent is not something that is based on justice at any age, and surely it is not based on justice in terms of Canada's youth.

There are many very positive points in the bill. I wish we could talk about the positive stories of our young people instead of scaremongering and dwelling on the problems that are there. The bill will help fix many of these problems to ensure that young people who do run afoul of the law have an opportunity to get their lives back together again.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The member's suggestion, as I understood him, is that somehow gun control has taken away the ability for hunting trips to take place. I think the idea of involving youth in hunting activities, target shooting or anything of that nature is really not much different than involving them in hockey or other activities in the community.

I am curious as to why the member would draw the parallel that somehow gun control prohibits young people from being involved in that kind of activity.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would just like to ask the member a question.

Your suggestion is, as I understand you—

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I almost rest my case because the member has reacted, typically, by saying I have somehow argued for the status quo. That attitude is what stifles true discussion in this place. The member says that unless a person is prepared to stand and buy into the line that the whole system is rotten, that we must change it and that we are all trained seals, then supposedly somehow he is in favour of the status quo. It is just not true. We can, should and will make changes to the system.

We cannot compare the situation of parliament to that of municipalities. I served in municipal government for 10 years. There was no partisanship, and there was no one sitting ready to attack and denigrate and criticize our every move. There is not much partisanship about roads and potholes and things of that nature in building municipal communities. It is a different scenario.

We literally have a situation where it does not matter what one does in government, whether one is a Liberal or a Tory or what have you. It does not matter. The system is that the opposition attacks and opposes. That is the only thing it is here for.

If we want to make parliamentary change we should try working within the committee system to support some of the activities the government is dealing with. Members on all sides would then have an opportunity to have input. It is a double-edged sword. Simply throwing it all on this side and saying it is not democracy shows, frankly, inexperience in someone who has not served on both sides of the House.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that some of my supposed friends have arrived in this place.

I find it interesting. I suspect we are heading into an opportunity lost. I commend my House leader for attempting to put forward some ideas and some recommended changes. I think they are good and they will make our lives as MPs and our ability to represent our constituents a little easier.

This will simply change the rules, but frankly I am sure that the types of changes that we are hearing opposite will not change the nature of this place. I hear people over there saying we do not live in a democracy. Democracy, or the lack thereof, should not be confused with acquiescence to one's ideas or to the ideas of one party or another. If the fact that we do not agree on something upsets someone over there, or even over here, it seems to me wrong, by its very nature, to stand up and say that is not democratic, to say that because people are going to do it their way because they were elected to do it that way and others cannot change their minds about it means they are not democrats. That in its very nature is just wrong-headed.

Frankly, the real true test of democracy in the country happens in the electoral system.

I hear the member opposite using an interesting phrase. He says this place is like an electoral college in perpetual session. I am sure people at home are watching this and asking what the heck he is talking about or asking what a lot of these people are talking about when they talk about change.

The real issue is, do we respect one another or do we even respect the role that we are expected to play as parliamentarians? Or do we simply want to use our partisan position to somehow denigrate the work of others in this place and therefore play into the hands of the naysayers and the people who would say that this place is not democratic? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, he basically said that this may not be the best system in the world but it is a long way ahead of whatever is in second place.

Does that mean we should not have change? Does that mean we should not perhaps change the way our committees operate? I heard my hon. colleague from this side of the House arguing in favour of having the ability to place amendments on the floor at report stage in this Chamber and not be restricted to committee. I think that is a good idea, again, as long as it is not abused.

We have seen members opposite put in place as many as 3,000 amendments. We have been through this debate. Changing a comma to a semicolon: is that democracy? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Is that the appropriate use of even the lighting that it takes to keep this place operating, never mind the staff and all the support services in this building? The Canadian people who, by the way, do not live in the little beltway that we live in, who watch all of this on the 11 o'clock news or read it in the morning, are saying “Why are those guys fighting all the time?”

The real essence of this place and this system is that we indeed can disagree. I have said this before. Some people would say this is scary, but our weapons are our minds and our words and our thoughts are our ammunition. We fight with one another in this place in a very democratic way. We go to the people and say to the people, here is what we believe in as Liberals or here is what we believe in as Alliance members or Tories or NDP or Bloc, so please vote for us, and they do.

It is interesting to me that we arrived here in the numbers that we did and what happened? Those who did not win government immediately jumped up and said they want parliamentary reform. I wonder why. At least the House leader for the New Democratic Party made an honest statement in the House earlier tonight when he said this is not about changing the rules.

Many rule changes have been put forward. In fact, the committee is called the modernization committee on House rules and that is terrific. Let us modernize the rules around this place. However, it is really much more than that. The New Democratic Party member said that it is not about changing the rules but about changing the balance of power. He used that word, power, and that is true.

What we are seeing here is people who are unable to obtain power through the democratic process and now want to do it through some form of subterfuge called parliamentary reform. I do not think that is what they want at all. Every time a member over here stands up and gives an honest opinion, such as my colleague who talked about having the ability to place amendments at report stage, what happens? An opposition member jumps up and says there is a member on the backbench over there who has just said something that is really important and is it not awful, oh my, and those guys are dictators and they will not free up their backbench, like “free my people”. What is that? It is nonsense.

In my opinion, people here who denigrate the work of any member on any side denigrate themselves. We can disagree on policy and we should. We can fight over the direction we believe the country should take and we should. However, we should all carry a message that the vast majority of the men and women who arrive in this place—as they have for decades—are honest, dedicated, hard-working people who come here to make a difference.

That does not mean we should be opposed to change. However, to suggest that it is not democratic in this place is just playing politics with a system that has survived the true test of time.

Let us make some improvements at committee. I find it interesting that people say one of the ways in which we can democratize parliament is to televise our committee procedures.

Let us examine what happens when that occurs. The citizenship and immigration committee, of which I am a member, is currently dealing with amendments to the Immigration Act. It has not been dealt with in 40 years. It is very controversial. Immigration brings out tremendous debate. Some think we have too much. Some think we do not have enough. We do not like certain problems that occur. We hear about people who come to the country and commit crime. It gets very emotional.

We decided as a committee that we would televise hearings, and we did. We met in the railway room off the Hall of Honour and we were on television. On the first day of the meeting the Leader of the Opposition showed up. Would the Leader of the Opposition have been there if it were not on television? The industry committee had the ethics counsellor on television. Who showed up? The leaders of all opposition parties showed up. Would they have been there if it were not televised? Maybe they would and maybe they would not.

If it really is important that the Canadian public can watch CPAC, and I am sure Canadians are delighted to do that with a bowl of popcorn, then let us televise it. If it will make the process more open, accessible and transparent to the Canadian public, and if it will really make a difference to democracy in the country, then let us televise it all.

If all it will do is provide the opportunity for people to come in to attack, criticize and denigrate individuals in this place, then it works much more toward anarchy than democracy.

If we want to reform parliament we should do it. However as I said in my opening remarks, I fear this will be an opportunity lost. I have served on both sides of the legislative system, in opposition and in government, and I believe opposition members can have the greatest influence in reforming the way parliament does business.

If we really want to change let us take a look at how some of our committees work. Let us look at public accounts. It works tremendously well. A member of the opposition chairs that committee and there is no partisanship. We work extremely well.

When there is not too much attention from the public, the immigration committee can work extremely well. We should try to work together and respect the work we all do as parliamentarians. That would be the greatest reform. Changing the rules is not a problem. Reforming the mentality of this place so that we respect one another would be an accomplishment. It would show the Canadian public that we respect them and the democratic choice they made in the last election. We can reform parliament by reforming attitudes.

[Blood Samples Act, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a few comments. I thought the attempt to have the bill sent to committee after less than one hour of debate was an honest attempt to take it back to where the bill was in the last parliament. I do not have a big objection to that, except I do think there should be full opportunity for due process.

We know there are three hours of debate. Having looked at the bill, the chances of it going to committee are probably pretty good. We should not take the procedural wrangling which has occurred in a negative way, without having the full opportunity for debate in the House.

I too commend the member for Fraser Valley for bringing forward this concept. I was interested in the story of the previous speaker about the individual refusing the blood test. One would wonder why. Interestingly enough, though, not only do certain rights collide here but certain responsibilities collide that we need to hash out in committee. I hate this because it is bureaucracy but it is also the reality that there is potential for the justice ministry to collide with the responsibility of the ministry of health.

That needs to be discussed. I am sure the member, being a medical doctor, would appreciate that health issues are involved in addition to justice issues. If the individual who refused the blood test did so out of spite, ignorance, fear or not understanding the outcome of it, maybe there is some justification for being concerned.

What about if the person were concerned about finding out something related to her past that would then preclude her from making certain declarations for insurance or for whatever purpose? That might be a stretch, but perhaps it is something that needs to be discussed in committee and that needs to be reported on by committee staff. Perhaps it could even hear from witnesses.

This seems to be an hour of storytelling. I too have an interesting story which the bill brought to mind. My oldest son works in management for Home Depot. He is not an emergency worker or a frontline worker, but one of the big problems in the store he works in is that there is an awful lot of theft.

There are an awful lot of people who walk out the door with something off the shelf. My son observed a person putting something in his clothing and walking out the door, so he confronted him. I found it bizarre that all of a sudden the person pulled out not a gun or a knife, but a syringe. He threatened my son with the syringe and all of a sudden everyone in the store panicked. People were screaming and falling down. It turned into the potential for an incredible tragedy.

The good news is that the management at Home Depot train their people. I cannot believe they go to that extent, but it shows the society we live in. They tell their employees about the possibility of being confronted with a syringe or being put in danger of coming in contact with a customer's bodily fluids. They tell them that they should avoid a situation like that at all costs because of safety concerns.

My son started to run back but he tripped and fell over. All of a sudden the guy was on top of him with a syringe and everybody was quite excited. They managed to disarm him. It is an interesting use of the word, but there was no question this was a weapon. They managed to disarm the individual and no damage was done.

It is an interesting perspective. This was not an ambulance worker, a policeman, a firefighter or someone like that. It was simply a manager in a store being confronted by someone who could have caused very serious problems.

I would like to be sure. From what I have read so far, it does cover people other than emergency and front line workers. I think of sports injuries and the potential problems that could occur there. I would want to be sure that was covered as well.

Referring it to committee makes sense. I would add, by the way, that I understand the treatment. When someone is confronted with that kind of situation, whether a front line worker or a store clerk, they can be forced to take what is referred to as a cocktail in a hospital emergency room under examination. I heard a story today from some of the police officers who visited me. They said they knew of an individual who went blind from the side effects of the cocktail.

There are a lot of questions. There are health questions, justice questions, rights questions and, as the former speaker said, there is the collision of human rights and the responsibilities of various ministries. When the time comes I think it will go to committee. It has merit, but we should take time to answer the questions properly.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I certainly would not purport to have all the answers to the farming crisis or, frankly, to just about anything else around here.

This is a collective in the sense that we all have input. However for the member to suggest that because he was raised on a farm he knows more about the issue than other members in this place is just nonsense.

I have never worked in a mine but I believe the importance of the mining industry is significant in my province and my community. I may have never worked in a steel plant or a car plant but does that mean I do not have a right to stand in this place and defend the workers in those places and talk about how we can support those industries?

Let us understand that farming is a business. I heard a member opposite refer to it as a culture. The member should get over it. Maybe he would like it to be a culture but it is a business. To survive as a business it must have new markets.

I absolutely agree, at least with the premise that the member puts forward, that we must work together, as a government and as opposition members, to bring ideas forward so we can develop long term sustainable solutions to this crisis that happens year after year after year.

Just for once I would be delighted to see opposition members put a motion for debate in this place that would lead us in that direction, but they do not. They continually play politics, trying to create problems that do not work toward solving the crisis. At least we are trying with an infusion of $500 million.

The caucus will stand strong to help farmers survive in the country so it will be a sustainable business for years to come.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have reflected on this, and the member opposite is already chirping that I am a resident agricultural expert before I have even started.

The point I want to make, if the member is at all interested, is that this is the first time I have seen an issue that has galvanized rural and urban members on all sides of the House, and certainly in this caucus.

As the chair of the Ontario caucus, I have to present the views of my colleagues from Ontario before the Prime Minister, cabinet and national caucus. I had to really study this issue, get to understand the significance of the problem and what some of the solutions might be. I arrived at a couple of conclusions.

First, a farmer from Saskatchewan called me and asked me if I realized that the $500 million that the federal government was giving to farmers would not solve the problem. That is a lot of money. It is curious how we can give out $500 million and still not solve the problem. The catch phrase from the opposition would be hard earned tax dollars.

Let me say to the urban members in my riding that they should understand the extent of the problem. That $500 million to a 1,000 acre farmer in western Canada means about $1,800 in subsidy. Let us think about this. A 1,000 acre farm is a serious business. The amount of subsidy that farm will receive is $1,800. What happens if we basically double it, which in essence is close to what the opposition motion is calling for? It is almost $400 million which will generate about $3,000 in subsidy.

Will that particular farmer be satisfied with $3,000? Will the farmer's problem be solved so that he or she will not be knocking on the door again? Will the farmer go away and say that it is wonderful, that the $3,000 has turned life around? We know that is not true.

Of course members on this side of the House would have liked to have given more. However, we also have much greater responsibility than some people in this place. We have to take a look at all aspects of society and prioritize the issues for all Canadians. A responsible motion would have called on the government to establish a policy platform to develop some long term sustainable solutions to the agricultural crisis.

I find it amazingly entertaining to sit here and see members of the Canadian Alliance back-pedalling. They are trying to defend policies that their predecessor, the Reform Party and their former leader, talked about and had in place, policies that they have ratified since becoming the Canadian Alliance.

I will share them with the House. The member could say that people watching might not understand what the members on this side are saying. Do not even ask them to try. Let them try to understand this.

At that party's last convention, it adopted a new policy book which called for the government to force “a self-reliant agricultural sector”. It was a policy declaration from the Canadian Alliance adopted in January 2000. Let us put that on the record. What does that mean? Words are very important in this business. Words are supposed to tell people what one is saying.

It went on to say “We will support and will advocate the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies”. These are not my words. They are policy words from the Canadian Alliance convention adopted in January 2000. It said “the elimination of all subsidies, support programs and trade restrictions”. This is where they hide behind the words, when it said “in conjunction with other countries”.

Just so the folks at home understand, I guess what Alliance members are saying is that they are going to call their buddy, George W. and say that we have a problem in Canada and that they want him to stop handing out money to his farmers so that we do not have to hand out any to ours. George W. is going to ask who is calling and then wish them a nice day.

The Alliance should talk straight to farmers. It should tell them whether or not it is prepared to support them. On one hand it wants to eliminate all subsidies. The predecessor party went dramatically further than even this policy book does when it called for the elimination of support to the agricultural sector.

The member for Calgary Southwest said in this place, “Spending more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any industry's problem”. He went on to say, “Reformers continue to call for reduced federal expenditures. Reformers on the other hand call for a phased clear cut reduction of the dependence of the agricultural sector on both levels of government”. Let us not play games.

That party actually ran election after election advocating the elimination of support to the agricultural sector. It has the unmitigated gall to stand here in front of the nation, in front of the House of Commons, and try to pretend that somehow were it on this side of the House, it would have written a cheque for $900 million. We just know it would have done that.

Actions in this case speak louder than words. The actions that have been shown by that party are despicable in the area of support. Did it raise the issue in this place? It did not raise the issue in this place.

Did it raise the issue in interviews and on talk shows? On an ongoing stead, it sustains an attack on the Prime Minister rather than sustaining the issue of support to the agricultural sector. That is what Alliance members have done over the past several weeks in this place.

Did the media raise this issue? Were there screaming headlines that farmers need help? I read all the papers every day and I did not see it anywhere. The media did not raise it.

One of the members in opposition during question period today said that they asked questions but that we did not answer them. I wonder who they asked? They must have asked each other because they sure as heck did not ask them in this place. The proceedings in this place are recorded. We know who has been fighting for farmers.

The people who have been fighting to get the $500 million, which is a lot of money, to support farmers and convince the government that they need help are members of the rural caucus, supported by people from urban Ontario and the rest of Canada.

People such as my friend from Toronto—Danforth held a rally in the Air Canada Centre, in that wonderful agricultural metropolis called Toronto, where thousands of people attended to celebrate and support the family farm. I was there.

It is not just about farming, it is about security of food. It is about knowing that our children will have food to sustain them as they grow. It is about building great communities. It is about restaurants and grocery stores. It is about jobs and business. It is extremely important and is all encompassing.

In closing, it would be a wonderful opportunity for any government to simply say yes every time someone came to it with a particular problem. We did say yes, with a $500 million contribution.

The Canadian Alliance is simply playing politics in an attempt to embarrass the government. It will not work. We are going to support farmers, as we have, and will continue to do just that.

[Petitions, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to present two petitions signed by 666 Canadians. The first one is from Falun Dafa of Canada, the peace team that is asking Canada to act as a mediator, if necessary, with the Chinese government to assist those who have been imprisoned for practising Falun Gong.

The second petition asks the Canadian government to apply for diplomatic immunity and visas for Canada's Falun Dafa peace delegation to visit China.