Steve Mahoney

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

The funding for exactly that kind of research has been cut by 85% in the province of Ontario.

I do not think that would solve all the problems either. I have said and continue to say that there is not one issue. There is not a panacea, save and except the Paul Bernardo solution. If that is what we will do, simply lock up dangerous offenders and never deal with anything, then I am afraid we will have jails full of people. We will have serious cost implications and we will not be dealing with the broader picture, the societal problem.

If they are indeed dangerous offenders, if they are declared dangerous offenders, then that is what should happen to them. Under the current justice system that is exactly what happens to them when they are declared dangerous offenders.

The frustration is that some people opposite would not suggest that we deal with some form of research into what drives it and what causes it. Is it a chemical imbalance? Is it abuse by an parent somewhere in the past? Did they suffer through some problems perhaps in school? What has driven them to this situation in life? With this registry how do we control the person who lives in Brampton where Christopher was murdered and decides to travel across Canada? I do not see that here.

The registry system in Ontario provides that they will give their name to the police, that it will be registered and that they must continue to register it for a period that approximates the time they were incarcerated. If it is a 10 year sentence it will be a 10 year registration period, but then it is over. What happens in the 11th year? Do we say we have not spent any money on research and therefore do not understand?

I will support the bill but I think we all collectively need, as much as possible in a non-partisan way, to find better solutions than just simply having a registry.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I feel duly admonished. The point I am trying to make is that we must find solutions for the problem that work. I have not seen anybody in this place on either side, other than the dangerous offender declaration, come up with something that will solve the problem. This will not do that. I think we should do it but it will not solve the problem.

The dangerous offender aspect of it does at least create the ability for us to ensure, as in the case of Paul Bernardo, that he lives in his little cell and is locked up for the rest of his life. I could care less if he watches a colour television as long as he does not get out on the street to do what he did to Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

That is what we care about, how to solve that problem. That is an aspect of our justice system that has evolved. I recognize that it evolved too late for my friend's case in point in his riding 24 years ago. Not all problems can be solved instantly.

It concerns me when we think that one way of dealing with it will eliminate all the problems. I heard one member opposite make the statement that rehab does not work. When the Ontario government to its credit brought in Christopher's Law it was supported on all sides of the House. Had I still been in the Ontario legislature I too would have supported it. However, it did something that was not talked about in its press releases or other information. It cut funding to treatment by 85%.

Will we just wash our hands and say that as long as we have a registry where these people can register their addresses we do not need to worry? Can we say that as long as we have the CPIC system that allows volunteer organizations and sports groups to do background checks, and that as long as there is all the good due diligence that is required and necessary and should be done by anybody, we can sleep at night and have what the member referred to as a feeling of safety in our communities? We know that is not the case.

What can we do? Do we just ignore the treatment side of it? The inquest jury into Christopher Stephenson's death recommended a number of things over and above something like a registry. It recommended that funding be provided for research into psychopathy and sexual disorders.

What is it in the makeup of human beings that would drive them to sexually abuse a child? God knows none of us in here would understand it. Should we not try to understand it? Should we not put money into research to try to find out what it is that drives and motivates that?

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

The topic at hand is about creating a registry system for convicted sex offenders who commit sex crimes, particularly against children. I do not think anyone around here would say this is a bad idea. I wish it would have been put forward in the spirit in which it was intended: to try to solve the problem instead of grandstanding.

We all know the story of when the Leader of the Opposition was in Alberta. He decided he would publicly write to criticize a local lawyer-school trustee because he had the unmitigated gall to take a case defending someone who had been charged, not convicted but charged, with pedophilia.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

He asks me to tell him about Karla. Let us take a look at what the conviction is about. It is a different issue and they know it.

Does anyone think we like that? Does anyone in the country like the fact that she was able to cut a deal because evidence was not found by the police officers when they did their investigation? They had to make a deal to get a conviction against Paul Bernardo. After they made the deal they found the tapes in the ceiling. Does anyone like that? Absolutely no one likes that.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

I understand the difference. The member should not worry. I am not picking on him. I have been nice to him lately. He should settle down. I do not want the member for Wild Rose to have another heart attack at my expense so he should take it easy.

The point is that if we are counting on all these people to register we should at least recognize it is only one more thing we can do to try to solve the problem. If they honestly believe we have seen the end of pedophilia, or that we will never see another tragedy like Abby Drover or like Christopher, I say with all due respect to the mover and his colleagues that they are very naive.

I do not know what the total solution is except for the Bernardo solution: declare them dangerous offenders. The man who did what he did to Abby Drover 24 years ago was not declared because there was not a dangerous offender section in the Criminal Code of Canada at the time. It is there now, and it has been used and will be used to ensure that these monsters are not allowed to prey on our children.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

The member says that we should register them. We will, as I said in the beginning. Those guys cannot take yes for an answer.

We are agreeing with the motion, not because it is politically expedient or somehow we can stand and say that only we on this side of the House want to stop the terrible travesty of having our young people raped and murdered. We do not say we are the only ones with a social conscience, with a respect for justice or with a concern for our kids. That is what I have been hearing all day.

What Christopher's Law does is put in place a system. Members opposite say the gun registry is no good and that it will not work because criminals will not register their guns. That is not a bad point. Are we then to say we will not do this because convicted pedophiles will not register their addresses? That is the point. Will it solve the problem?

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

The member says to stick to the subject. The subject is about solving and somehow finding a way to prevent horrific crimes against our children. This may help, just as our CPIC system may help. It does not solve it all. I am the first to admit that. That is why I am willing to support the motion. It is an add-on. It is an addition. It is something else that might help.

What the province of Ontario has put in place is a system whereby the convicted pedophiles are released from jail and have to register where they are living. They have to register within 15 days where they are moving to or after they have moved. If they fail to do that, they can be arrested. They can be fined a minimum of, I think, $25,000 or receive one year in prison. For subsequent offences, it is another $25,000 or two years in prison, et cetera.

Yes, it is a mechanism, so that if in fact the police are able to find these individuals, if the police happen to pull them over in some kind of a traffic violation, if they are arrested in some other scenario or if the police come across them, the police will be able to find out whether or not these individuals have indeed registered where they are living.

It is not a panacea. The member says we are missing the point when we compare the registration of weapons. A sick pedophile is a weapon, without a doubt.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

That is right. We declare them dangerous offenders at the time of conviction. I recall listening to the news on the reports of the jury's decision in Paul Bernardo's trial for one of the most horrific crimes we have ever seen in this province and in this country. I remember waiting for the report to come out and praying that this man would be declared a dangerous offender so that we would never—whether we are in elected office or anybody is, or just as unelected Canadians—have to face the fact of someone like that being released into society.

Families of victims continue to go through these unbelievable, painful scenarios of having the murders and rapes of their daughters and young boys, their children, dragged through the press, and for what?

I have respect for the member for Surrey North who had a personal tragedy, but when he stands up and says that the Alliance members care—I wrote this down—for women and children more than the Liberals do, goodness gracious. Can anybody honestly say that because one belongs to a particular political party one somehow cares more about our women and children and the safety of our communities? It is just impossible for me to understand that.

One could have the most right wing approach to this thing, a lock them up and throw away the key approach, or one could have the most left wing approach, where one thinks that the solution is in mollycoddling or rehabilitating them without ever putting them in jail. One could take either of those extreme positions, but I think it is so unfair to suggest that because someone belongs to a particular party or happens to belong to the government of the day he or she does not care about this issue.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first of all I want to apologize. I am sporting a bit of a cold, but in spite of that this is an issue that I feel very strongly about and that I want to speak about in this place.

The first thing I want to say is that it is interesting to me that the opposition does not seem to be able to take yes for an answer. I have heard member after member after member stand up in his place here today and say he will vote for this.

I will vote for it. I will put that on the record right now.

However, maybe the motivations and the reasons are important so that we in fact understand what is going on with this particular motion. Members opposite will know that I can be as partisan as anyone in this place over certain issues from time to time, but this is an issue that is unfortunately being used for what we can only call partisan political purposes.

Who cannot feel sympathy when the member speaks of Abby Drover? Who cannot feel that the 24 years of torture she has suffered reliving that horrific crime is the worst thing anyone can imagine? Who cannot feel frustration and anger when we read the inquest report on the death of Christopher Stephenson, which happened in a community just up the road from where I live? A young man, an 11 year old boy, was sexually assaulted, tortured, raped and murdered by a pedophile who was out on parole and who was subsequently incarcerated. These are the most horrific crimes imaginable.

I listened to the member for Surrey North speak. I know of his personal involvement in the loss of a loved one due to violence. While it might not have been of this nature, it was still violent and it was still a young person. I understand, I think, because I do not know if I truly can. I do not know if we can truly understand the loss of a child. We are not supposed to outlive our children. The fact of having a child die is unimaginable in itself. To have that child murdered or sexually assaulted by a perverted, sick individual, I do not know how I would live with that, I really do not.

In the inquest into the death of Christopher Stephenson, which I share with you, where the members of the jury dedicated their report to the memory of Christopher, they said they would like to express their deepest appreciation to Jim and Anna Stephenson for showing great courage in their pursuit of the truth.

It is one thing for us to bring these examples forward. We cannot hide from them. We have to talk about them. However, would somebody please tell me that a national registry that requires convicted pedophiles who have completed their sentences to register their addresses is going to save an Abby Drover or someone else from being assaulted sexually? Is this really the panacea?

We in the government have done some things. If the members would be honest when they speak, they would admit that the government has made some financial commitments to try to resolve the problem. However, no one can stand on either side of the House, including the mover of the motion, and with any amount of sincerity claim to have the solution to the problem.

I will tell the House what the one solution is. The one solution is the one that was imposed on Mr. Bernardo.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they always interrupt me because they have very thin skins.

Let me deal with the issue. The issue is parliamentary reform. The issue is whether our Speaker should have the ability to rule an amendment out of order that is put forward by anyone in this place. As a matter of fact I am not even sure we need the particular amendment to the standing orders. Having read them, it is my opinion the Speaker already has the ability to throw those kinds of things out.

If he or she considers them vexatious or irrelevant, it is my opinion that the Speaker of this place can rule them out of order. However, we want to have a debate about toughening up the rules, making it more clear to the boys and girls that we will no longer allow periods to be substituted for commas because they simply do not change the basis of the bill. We will no longer allow someone to submit 3,000 amendments for the sole purpose of stopping a bill that the government, duly elected in a majority position, has not only a right but a responsibility to put forward. It is the agenda of the government that needs to be put on the table.

If opposition members had any credibility whatsoever they would stand and fight. They would stand and debate. They would stand and disagree, but they do not. What do they do? They say that this place is dysfunctional and that MPs are irrelevant. I take exception to that.

It is my view that the proudest thing one can do in this great country is serve in this place. It is clearly an honour to have people in our communities, our neighbours and our friends, say that they trust us to go to Ottawa to represent them, that they believe in what we are telling them. They do not like everything we do. They disagree with us from time to time. We may have to vote a certain way because we do or do not agree on a certain bill. They understand that. That is the process. That is the democratic way.

I will paraphrase Winston Churchill who said that it may not be the best system in the world but it is a long way ahead of whatever is in second place.

Let us understand that when they lose and when they cry about the system that is one thing. The next thing they do is denigrate their colleagues. However, when they look in the mirror and say as members of this place that MPs are not doing their jobs, that they are irrelevant or that they are trained seals, they denigrate the face in the mirror.

That is the problem in this place. If we want to return respect of parliament to Canadians, if we want to return respect of parliamentarians to Canadians, it is time we respected ourselves. That is not to say we should be arrogant. We have no right to do that. In fact the opposite is true. We need to work, as my colleagues do and even members over there do. We have round tables in our communities. We have public meetings in our communities. We put out householders. We all return phone calls, I would hope, to our constituents.

I find it interesting that constituents will phone my office and say that they are calling because they are mad about this or mad about that. They leave their names and phone numbers. They think I will not call them back but I do.

My policy is that within 24 hours I return a call personally. Guess what they say, Mr. Speaker? They ask whether that is really me. They are stunned that a member of parliament actually called them back. If they did not want me to call them back, why would they call and leave a message?

It is our job to talk to the people. That does not mean and never will mean that we are puppets. I love it when the whip of the Alliance Party says that members of the Alliance Party will vote in favour of the motion unless they are told otherwise by their constituents.

Do they have a hot line? Do they have all their constituents on a big speaker phone doing a yea and a nay, doing a referendum of some kind? I guess three per cent of the people told them that this was what they wanted them to do. They are all out there saying “Mary, what do you think? Should I vote in favour of this or not?”

I am being a little facetious but the serious point is that we do an injustice to the Canadian people to run down this institution. If members want to know what fuels the so-called alienation we hear about in places like Quebec and western Canada, it is exactly that kind of behaviour which runs down this place. They throw gasoline on the fire and the people say it is awful that those terrible politicians in Ottawa will not listen to them.

It is interesting that the people of Canada do not buy it at the end of the day. I have talked to people in my community who say that they do not like politicians but that they do not mean me. I am sure everybody in this place gets that. I do not want a second opinion, either.

That is what happens because they read it in the newspaper, saw it on the news or heard someone in parliament say we are all a bunch of bad people who do not care about our communities. We know that is not true. Putting forward motions to change periods and commas and semicolons is not even an intelligent way of using the parliamentary democracy that is available in this wonderful place, in this incredible establishment.

It says to Canadians that we are here. I agree with one thing the member opposite said in his speech, that we are here to provide a voice for all Canadians.

I want to talk on the issue of the ethics counsellor that the opposition is having a field day with. Nobody over there mentions the fact that in 1999 the ethics counsellor appeared before the industry committee and made a report to parliamentarians. I am assuming, a terrible leap in faith maybe, that there were members opposite in attendance at that committee since it was a standing committee of this House. They heard Mr. Wilson make his report and they had opportunity to question him on his findings. That committee then reported to parliament.

I refer to the commissioner of the RCMP, which brings up another point that the member of the fifth party over there in the corner does not want to accept, the absolutely independent investigation by the RCMP which found that there was no wrongdoing. Those members say they want it referred to the ethics commissioner and then when the ethics commissioner says there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Prime Minister, what do they do? They complain about the process. It is what I said before. They complain that the ethics commissioner, because they did not like the answer, is a lapdog. That too is an insult.

As far as how I voted and my colleagues voted, I am very strongly of the opinion that we have already lived up to the commitment in the red book by appointing the ethics commissioner. He has the responsibility and the opportunity and will be invited from time to time to appear before a committee of the House. All we have to do is ask and he will come. He will answer questions and then the committee will report to this place. It is absolutely normal.

I will give the members opposite credit for one thing. They managed to trick the media a little bit. They managed to put some kind of message or image out there that we were breaking a promise when in fact they knew full well we had already kept that promise and lived up to that commitment.

To this day that ethics counsellor is there. If they want to apply to have him investigate, they can do so. If they do not like the answer, they had better not come crying to me. He is there to do a job and he has his responsibilities. He will absolutely discharge those responsibilities.

I want to talk about someone else. Someone always throws out the name of my former good friend Mr. Nunziata. Mr. Nunziata stood in this place and voted against the government on a confidence motion that had to do with the budget. Everyone said how wonderful and great he was.

Let me ask members a question. Everybody loves hockey in this country. If I played on a team and I shot the puck on purpose into my own net, what would my team members do to me? They would tell me to sit on the bench or they would kick me off the team.

If Mr. Nunziata would have had the courage to step out of caucus and vote against the government, I would have nothing but admiration for him. He did not. He voted against the government, against the team, and the end of the day this is a team sport, a blood sport and a fabulous place to be. I could not be more proud to represent the constituents of Mississauga West and I will continue to do so with vigour in this place.