Steve Mahoney

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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?

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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”.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

That is not true.

[1979 Mississauga Train Derailment, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago last Wednesday, during the evening of November 10, 1979, an event took place that is now known as the Miracle of Mississauga.

A 106-car freight train carrying explosives and poisonous chemicals was derailed at the Mavis Road rail crossing. Over the next few days 218,000 people were evacuated from private homes, nursing homes and hospitals. Our city became a virtual ghost town.

Amazingly after seven days, through the diligent hard work and untiring efforts of Mississauga's emergency service crews, combined with the assistance of several outside personnel, no lives were lost and our citizens returned.

Though today there are no visual reminders of this potential disaster, Mississaugans will never forget the Miracle of Mississauga.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, indirectly I did mention the member, although I did not mention him by name. I said that he was complaining earlier about some of the bureaucracy and the red tape by the farmers. I did sort of touch on it but I also had confidence that he would rise in his place to compliment me in some fashion. I am getting used to that.

I did stand up to IFAW, the International Fund for Animal Welfare. It threatened to sue me over remarks that I made where I accused its members of not being totally honest with the lobby that they were leading. Many members in this place received computerized phone calls to our offices lobbying us, passing out information that was totally false and telling members and senior citizens contributing $10 that baby seals were being slaughtered on the banks off of Newfoundland when we know that is not true. In fact, it is against the law. The government made it against the law and levied over 100 charges. Of course there will be people who will break the law in that regard but we have to be tough on that.

I have certainly stood up to those interest groups and will continue to do so.