Steve Mahoney

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

I will not go away, trust me. The hon. member can trust me. I am with the government.

It is this kind of intervention we should be doing more of instead of coming up with nonsensical statements about pieces of wood, caning, punching and hitting. We just do not beget respect from young people by treating them that way.

I understand fully that there was a generation which believed in that. I attended a Catholic boarding school. If we want to talk about pieces of wood and paddles, they used closed fists and boots to take care of their discipline. That is what happened to me. It has had lasting, damaging effects. The violence I saw in that school meted out by men of the cloth, I would not tolerate now for one second if it were my son. It is wrong, but in the 1950s and 1960s it was commonplace. It was the way of dealing with things. It is the way we were brought up. I do not blame people for that. It was a mentality that came out of that generation. I do not totally understand it.

I grew up in a family of 10 kids. My dad was a labour leader. He was just as likely to cuff me across the head as not. He was a tough man. That was the mentality that he grew up in, that I grew up in. It is not the mentality of my sons. Even though I consider myself to be a very strong disciplinarian, I use my head and heart instead of my fists.

I think that is what the bill does. It has a mind and it has a heart. It takes on the issue of young offenders and gives young offenders an opportunity to start over again, to have a new life. If they commit a crime a second time it means we have to work with them.

There are elements to the bill that will put requirements on young offenders as part of the sentencing that will occur. They will have to do work in the community and obey certain rules. They will have to stay drug free and alcohol free. They will not associate with certain individuals with whom they might have got into trouble. Maybe they were a member of a gang. That happens today. Tragically we see it in the greater Toronto area too often. Maybe they will have to live up to a curfew. The idea of curfews in some communities is repugnant. It probably makes sense. If they break the rules imposed by the justice system under this new law, they can be hauled right back into court and put into custody. It gives them a chance.

If Canada is known for anything in the world, it is that we offer hope, we offer a chance, and we care about our young people, in fact all our people. There can be some changes. I do not have a problem with making some changes at committee or with taking a look at improving the bill. That may well make sense. However, some policies have been espoused against the bill. To oppose the bill because one is a separatist and thinks that it does not give enough power to the provinces or because one does not think it goes far enough and wants to incarcerate 10 year olds, is a most unfortunate use of the privilege of being a member of parliament. It is an abuse of the power we all have as representatives of the people.

Obviously I support the bill. It is about time we amended and reworked the Young Offenders Act. This is positive. This is good for young people. I think it will be good for our justice system.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

No, that is the point. The Reform Party member says “like murder”. Eighty-seven per cent of the crimes committed by young offenders are not violent offences. Reformers know that, but they consistently want to somehow showcase the ones that are violent. This bill makes changes that will deal with young violent offenders.

There will be the option to publish the names of young violent offenders, particularly if the justice system deems them to be a menace or a danger to society. That is what the bill does. I am astounded that members opposite did not stand and give a standing ovation. This is what they have been asking for.

Going back to the point that except in cases of very young offenders the identity should be made public, their definition of a young offender should be 10 years old. A 10 year old gets in some trouble and he is charged by the police. He stole something; he was shoplifting. He got in with a bad gang of kids. Who knows what it was? Maybe tragically he got involved with drugs. They would have his name on the wall at the golf club, I suppose, as being late paying his dues. They would somehow do the scarlet letter on this 10 year old child.

How in God's name can anybody that is at all responsible, being an elected member in a place like this and representing constituents in this wonderful country, stand there with a straight face, without total shame, and suggest that is any kind of credible way of dealing with a 10 year old child in trouble with the law? It is truly frightening, frankly.

I know they want to soften the image. I know they want to change the position as far as the public is concerned. They talked about it at the UA conference that I referred to. One interesting thing about being an elected representative in this great democratic society is that people have a nasty habit of holding politicians accountable for the things they say. They had better think before they say them.

They come out with a statement saying that the Reform Party supports legislation which would allow the publication of the names of all convicted offenders, including young offenders. The bill says if it is a violent offence, if there is danger to society, the option is there. That should address their concerns. To simply say that we should publish the names of every person who gets in trouble with the law from the age of 10 on up is so nonsensical as to be almost laughable.

I want to refer to some good stories. I have the honour of chairing a group called the prime minister's task force on youth entrepreneurship. Recently I was at a hearing in Halifax at which we heard from young entrepreneurs, service providers, and people involved in helping young people.

It was a wonderful establishment, by the way. I would say to members from Nova Scotia that I believe the province of Nova Scotia has it right. I have been right across the land, through the west and down east. We are continuing to travel. We will be going north and through Ontario and Quebec. Nova Scotia has five operations, two of which I have seen in Windsor, Nova Scotia, and one in Halifax, called Open for Business. Open for Business is like the Planet Hollywood of youth entrepreneurship. It is wonderful. The one in Windsor is in a shopping mall and the other one is in downtown Halifax. They are just alive with young people.

We were at a hearing where we had some young entrepreneurs in a panel that appeared before us in a group discussion. Senator Moore was with us and he asked a question of a very young lady who was one of the young entrepreneurs. He said “How did you find out about Open for Business?” Her answer was astounding. She said “My parole officer told me”. We were all stunned at the remark because just looking at this person would certainly not fit the profile of what we might expect to be an individual who had a parole officer.

She had started a business. I will not go into details about her business. She had been convicted under the Young Offenders Act. She has a four year old son at home. She was contacted and was told that she was a candidate for a program in the province of Nova Scotia called second chance. Obviously second chance is what this bill is all about.

This young woman came in and met with the counsellors. She met with peers. She met with young people. The real key to success in the Open for Business concept is that there are peer counsellors, young people who have had a bit of entrepreneurial experience and can work with young people who have great ideas. Mr. Mahoney

In the province of Manitoba in the month of July I will be attending a camp that is run for youth at risk. It is another second chance program. It is an opportunity for young people to come into a camp where they are taught life skills and entrepreneurial thinking.

This is absolute cutting edge stuff. This is stuff that we should be spreading the gospel about throughout the land. We should be inviting young people at risk to get involved in the camp in Manitoba and to go to places like Open for Business and get involved in second chance. This stuff works.

The young woman I met in Nova Scotia has turned her life around. She now has a business that has been open for eight months. She takes her four year old son to work with her because it is the type of business where the child is not in the way and she can function.

Even if the business were to close tomorrow, this young woman has turned her life around. I do not know what her crime was. She has a parole officer. I suspect it must have been fairly serious. I do not think we assign parole officers to youths coming out of school. She has turned her life around, even if her business were to fail, because of the work done by the men and women and the young people in the province of Nova Scotia at this wonderful place called Open for Business and this wonderful program called second chance. That is what has turned her life around.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the bill, but I do want to point out a couple of anomalies, one might say. There are a couple of statements and remarks made by members of the Reform Party that show the reason they simply have no credibility anywhere east of the Manitoba border and the reason they are falling apart in western Canada.

Their cry used to be that the west wants in. Well, the west is in. The west has tremendous representation at the cabinet table. Sixteen Liberal members are doing all the work that the Reform Party will not do for their constituents in western Canada. We have a task force travelling across the west to try to pick up the pieces because the Reform Party refuses to tell the people in western Canada about the good work and the programs available, put in place by this government. We have to do their work. They should send a percentage of their paycheques to their colleagues in those provinces in western Canada.

Here is another marvellous statement about how they would deal with young offenders. This is about the dreaded repeat offender: “The repeat offender will never see the light of day after committing his second act”. The second time with one's hand in the cookie jar and we are throwing away the key, that is it. Boy, that is compassion.

It is the party that in some incredulous manner is trying to convince the Canadian people that they have changed their stripes, that they are softer and gentler. I do not think so, and the Canadian public sure as heck does not think so.

Let me give a couple more before I go to the meat of the bill. It says here “except in cases of very young offenders”. I would like to hear that definition. I think I know what it is. “Except in cases of very young offenders the identities of young offenders must be made public”. We should think about that. A youngster gets in some trouble. Sometimes young males are all full of testosterone; they are excited, running around and they do something stupid.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Is that what he did?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why it is. The member for Wild Rose is not the justice critic, I do not believe. I stand to be corrected but I do not think so. He seems to be the one out in the forefront of Reform policy in this area. I guess it is because he spent many years as a high school principal, which is mind boggling frankly.

I heard the comment on what causes youth suicide. He can correct me if he wants to later on but I heard him use the word fear. That really identifies what the Reform policy is all about in terms of dealing with young people.

I can rather tragically talk with some experience about youth suicide and others. I have experienced it in my family. A very close friend of mine when he was 21 years old committed suicide. He tragically laid down in front of a train.

We struggled with trying to understand. He was not a young offender but we struggled with trying to understand what would drive a 21 year old human being in his prime to do this. I can give the assurance it was not fear. It was lack of hope. That is the fundamental problem I believe we deal with any time we deal with the issues of youth justice, young offenders, children and young people at risk. It is unfortunate when people talk in terms of fear instead of respect.

I have raised three young men. I am proud to say they are not young offenders, even though I think when I was their age I probably could have been, but was not.

It is respect. It is what the young people think about their role models. It is how they look at their parents. It is how they look at their teachers. It is how they look at their high school principals.

I do not want to get into denigrating other members' comments so I will not even attribute these except to say they were made by members who are in this House at this moment, members of the Reform Party. They do not talk just in terms of using a paddle but have used things like “tasted a piece of wood” that somehow that is an appropriate way of meting out discipline on a young person in trouble, a young person who is rebelling, is confused, who perhaps has made a mistake. They say the way to deal with with that person is to have them taste a piece of wood. I find that absolutely despicable.

I find it interesting coming from someone who worked in the education system. I frankly find that scary. The one good thing about the fact that that individual is here, elected as a member of parliament, is that the member is no longer in the education system taking pieces of wood to our young people. If the member wants to try to take them to us, that is up to the member. I welcome that any time. But at least that mentality in that community has apparently been extricated from the education system. That is a bonus. That is a plus. It is truly an unfortunate attitude.

Another member opposite says that the Reform Party position on the Young Offenders Act or youth at risk is not simplistic. Well, how about this: “Beating violent young offenders with a rattan cane would not be too harsh a punishment”. Again, another Reform MP's statement.

And Reform members wonder why people react negatively to their remarks and comments. They wonder why they got 6% of the vote in the Windsor byelection this past week. They cannot figure that out. When they established a united alternative, or the united alienation party, they had a convention and brought 1,500 people to Ottawa. Then everybody scratched their heads and said “Excuse me, I joined the Reform Party. Why are you throwing it on the scrap heap? Why are you throwing the Reform Party in the dump?”

I drew the short straw. I was there as a Liberal representative. It was like sticking a thousand needles in my eyes to spend the weekend there. It was like scraping one's fingernails down the blackboard. It was unbelievably painful to spend a weekend listening to the nonsense that was being espoused and listening to avowed separatists coming forth to receive standing ovations from these so-called purveyors of moderation.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the hon. member to understand anything that I have said. I would not expect him to agree with it by any means, but I would tell the hon. member that as the Prime Minister's chair of the task force on youth entrepreneurship, which I have not seen him criticizing, I have travelled western and eastern Canada. I have met with representatives of western diversification. I have met with the service delivery people. I have met with the young entrepreneurs in western Canada.

To hear this member stand hear and say that the western diversification fund is not important to western Canada simply reinforces my view that the members of his party have neither their feet on the ground nor their ears to it. They are not representing their constituents in ensuring that they have access to government plans and government information. The reason why the Prime Minister has seen the need to strike a task force of parliamentarians who will travel through western Canada listening to the needs and concerns of western Canadians is because the Reform Party is not doing that.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was neglectful in not mentioning the member for Saint Boniface who is also the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification.

It is interesting that the member would talk about all these issues. I will agree with him on something. The Reform Party has stood up and mentioned many of those issues in the House, but generally it was the afternoon after it came out in the Globe and Mail or the National Post , which is where it does its research. It was not because it was on any kind of cutting edge or that it was being proactive.

The Reform Party members are reading the newspaper over morning coffee and saying, “Look at this, APEC. We had better talk about this. Holy smokes, there is a scandal. We had better talk about this”. That is where they get their research.

If they would spend more time taking care of their constituents and giving them the information that comes out of this government in western Canada, just maybe there would not be a need for a task force to travel across the west.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the travelogue of the member from Edmonton North who, I guess, was obviously on some kind of a vacation in New Brunswick. I did not know Reformers actually travelled east of the Manitoba border except to come to this place. Obviously, they are out campaigning on their own, talking to New Brunswickers, doing what I am sure they are accusing us of doing, looking for candidates.

Maybe the member should have spent some time in the byelection in Windsor where this party did not even get its deposit back, where this party came fourth, where this party got a message from the voters in Ontario that some day it is going to wake up and understand that those voters have no time for the Reform Party.

I have been advised that I am splitting my time with my good friend from Vancouver Quadra.

What I find astounding is the fact that we are debating what could only be called one of the silliest motions that I have ever seen in this House.

Last night through until 8 o'clock this morning, members of all parties stood in the House and talked about the war. Like it or not, this country is involved in a serious conflict and all we get from the member opposite is her travelogue from New Brunswick. Members should instead be standing up in the House and talking about important issues such as the war. What do we get on an opposition day?

Last night in a question period, the members opposite berated the government for not having a vote. While the lives of our fighting men and women are at risk, they wanted to play politics. They wanted to have a vote. That is terrific. This is the vote. We are going to vote on whether or not we should join our partners in NATO. Once we have had that vote, then we will send the message over to Mr. Milosevic, who I am sure will be busy listening to C-SPAN to hear exactly what we are saying.

If they wanted a vote on any of those issues, why would they not take that opportunity today? It is their day. The Canadian people should know that this is opposition day. The Reform Party, as the official opposition, has the option of putting forward almost any motion it wants, save and except a spending bill, for debate in this place, and then at the end of the day we would vote on it.

Why would the Reform Party not stand up in this place and introduce a motion to have a vote, in whatever way it wanted to frame it, surrounding the issue of the war in Kosovo? Why would it not do that?

Today of all days, when we awake this morning to the news that the Yugoslav army has invaded Albania with ground troops, we are talking to a motion that says we should rename a government caucus task force, the liberation alienation committee, something about alienating the west.

Why would we not be debating the issues that Canadians have on their minds today? Canadians are worried about the men and women who are in Europe defending freedom and democracy, defending the refugees in that part of the world. Canadians are worried about the potential influx of thousands of refugees and how we are going to take care of them. They are calling all of our offices as MPs and opening up their hearts, wallets and homes to try to help these people, and the best the Reform Party can do is come up with some cockamamie motion about renaming a government task force.

I guess its nose is out of joint because the task force has found it necessary to go into the ridings represented by Reformers in western Canada and meet with people. We get phone calls from those people telling us their member of parliament has not told them about the details of the millennium fund, or their member of parliament has not told them about the details of the tax cuts in the recent budget. Why would the Reform Party not do that? I believe it is not doing its jobs.

I really do not care whether the members opposite agree with the millennium fund program. I really do not care whether or not they agree with the western diversification programs that are going on in western Canada. Whether they care or agree is not the point.

Once members of parliament are elected, they are obligated to represent everyone in their constituency whether or not they voted for them or carry the party card. They are not allowed to be partisan when it comes to representing the constituents in their communities. They are not allowed to display partisan material in their offices. There is a good reason for that.

When I was elected the member for Mississauga West, it was my duty and sworn responsibility to represent everyone whether they voted New Democrat or Tory. I know they certainly did not vote Bloc. A few in my riding voted Reform, although I do not believe they got their deposit back. This is a message that some of them should think about.

The battle cry of the Reform Party when it was formed some years ago was that the west wants in. Let me give some examples because the Reform members do not think that the west is in.

We have representatives doing terrific work and actually handling constituency complaints from ridings represented by Reformers because they are not doing their jobs. We have a dedicated, honest and hard-working woman in Vancouver Kingsway. Members will hear shortly from the member for Vancouver—Quadra. We have a former mayor of Coquitlam who is a terrific, hard-working member for his constituents. We have the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. We have the members for Winnipeg South, Winnipeg North—St. Paul and Provencher. The west wants in. How much more in would it like?

We have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has stood up and made sure, for the first time, that somebody is doing something about the fish. Is that not a revolution? Is that not a reform? This motion is about the west, but the truth is that our fisheries in eastern Canada were destroyed by former Tory ministers. This minister is fighting for them as he is for the salmon in western Canada.

The Minister of Revenue has changed the collection agency to make it a responsive agency. The Minister of Multiculturalism and the Status of Women stood in this place and defended single parents and single stay at home moms. The Minister for Asia-Pacific is representing and fighting on behalf of human rights issues all around the world. The Minister of Justice recently introduced amendments to the Young Offenders Act that are being lauded across the country. The Minister of Natural Resources is a fighter on behalf of the changes in the Kyoto agreement. The Minister of External Affairs, who nobody can say anything negative about, is one of the greatest parliamentarians in this place. He is a man known around the world for leading the fight to ban land mines. The west is clearly in.

The Reform Party should be looking at the Minister of Western Economic Diversification who is trying to find a way to funnel energy and economic growth into western Canada. All of these ministers are at the table on behalf of the people in western Canada. The additional members are in caucus fighting every day on behalf of their constituents and are doing the job that members in the Reform Party fail to do for their constituents.

[Erinoak, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1971 a group of parents and community-minded individuals in Mississauga established the Credit Valley Association for Handicapped Children.

Their goal was to recognize the special needs of individuals with physical disabilities, to help them be the best that they can be.

In May 1979 they opened the new Credit Valley Treatment Centre for Children, which they had raised funds to build. Today that centre is called Erinoak. With a staff of over 100, services have been extended to schools and homes. They have made a profound difference in many people's lives.

On March 25, Erinoak honoured its volunteers and supporters at a donor recognition evening.

I have seen first-hand the wonderful work this centre does. I salute the more than 200 dedicated volunteers of Erinoak and I thank them for their enormous contribution to our community in Mississauga.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

That's right.