Steve Mahoney

[Scholarships Named After Olympic Athletes, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could, in one sense, stand here and say to the member opposite that I am willing in whole or at least in part to support this motion because I think the intent is probably good.

It is unfortunate, however, when we politicize the Olympic games and our Olympic champions. Who will forget the pride that all Canadians felt, perhaps with the exception of one or two members of the Bloc who caused some difficulties with regard to the Olympics? I will not go into the great flag flap during this debate. Who can forget? Most of us stayed up until all hours of the night and morning to watch the events.

We all felt a great disappointment when Canada did not come home with hockey medals. However, when we look at the inclusion of the elite players of the National Hockey League, as exciting as the hockey could have been, might have been and should have been, the reality is that I never considered those individuals to be true Olympians in the same sense as the people the hon. member has mentioned such as Ross Rebagliati, Annie Perreault, Marc Gagnon and his team. There was excitement in their success and that of our bobsled team.

Probably we received more television coverage this time around due to the time change for curling. Some people made disparaging remarks about curling being an Olympic sport. It can be a demanding game requiring a tremendous amount of sacrifice and effort on behalf of the athletes.

The member suggests that the first scholarship fund should be named after Sandra Schmirler Rink of Regina. There is no question that we congratulate her and all the citizens of Saskatchewan. I may be wrong—and the member can correct me if he so wishes—but I believe Saskatchewan might have led the nation in medals at the Olympics. One of our smaller provinces turns out tremendously talented athletes who did—

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman from the Reform Party how he can justify voting against this bill when in doing so, he is saying he is opposed to abolishing provisions that prevent prosecuting individuals for homicide or criminal negligence when more than a year and a day has passed. He is opposed to making it easier to prosecute people who obtain services from underage prostitutes. He is opposed to helping judges and police deal more effectively with offenders who breach a condition of a conditional sentence order. He is opposed to making people convicted of organized crime offences ineligible for accelerated parole review. By voting against this bill he is saying he is opposed to giving new powers to justices to order an accused who is detained pending a bail hearing not to communicate with any witness or other person.

I refer him to issues around domestic violence. He is opposed by voting against Bill C-51 to changes that will indeed help to eradicate domestic violence and resolve these other issues of grave concern to the safety of all people in this country.

Could the hon. member explain why he is opposed to those amendments, to those changes to the Criminal Code and why he is voting against those aspects?

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I too would like to talk about some of the issues mentioned by the member who just finished speaking.

I find it interesting how much time we spend in this place debating justice issues and crime issues. It is particularly true since the emergence of the Reform Party and its attempts to overdramatize and frankly to frighten the Canadian public and people visiting this country, when Canada is by and large a safe place to live, a safe place to work and raise a family and a safe place to visit.

I would like to reassure people that our justice system, with some of its faults, is a fine system. It does provide proper justice to criminals. It does provide safety and security for families. When there are tragedies and victims are involved, there is a mechanism in place that will respond to those tragedies.

I also say to visitors, to people like Stafford and Lesley Woods who just arrived today from Europe that their stay in Canada, even though it will be with me, will be reasonably safe. They need not worry that they have landed in a country that the Reform Party would have them think is fraught with criminals, with organized crime, with gangs running around, with rape and pillaging taking place. That is simply not the reality experienced in this country.

I was also particularly interested in the comments by the member from the Reform Party who said that we should somehow take the politics out of these debates, to paraphrase those remarks. Yet in the year and a bit I have been in this place I have seen no one here who plays politics more with justice issues, more with crime and more in a tragic sense with victims of crime than members of the Reform Party.

It is interesting to hear them say how they would support some form of safe gun legislation or gun registry, yet they have been opposed to what some 80% of Canadians have supported, which is a gun control law that does make our streets safer.

Last week or the week before we dealt with the DNA bill which will provide a system of enhanced enforcement and control for police right across the country. It is a bill that police chiefs and police associations have supported in large number. The police believe and know—and my colleague from Waterloo who I believe served on the police commission would tell us—that a system of registering DNA in a proper data bank will assist them in doing their job. Yet that was opposed and members of the Reform Party played politics on that legislation.

Members stand up and say that we should not be on a witch hunt, yet I see nothing but witch hunts in this place. It has got to the point that you have to check underneath the cubicle door in the washroom to make sure no one is sitting there with his feet up and a notepad trying to catch something someone might say that could be raised as a point of privilege in an attempt to embarrass someone who might have been having a private conversation. It appears there is no safe place where we do not find members of the opposition lurking about attempting to catch and trick members of the government, to fabricate and come forward with a horrendous scandal.

It is scandal envy. Members opposite see what President Clinton is going through. They see the feeding frenzy of the media in the United States and the games played by members of the Republican Party in coming forward in the impeachment process. They ask “Why can we not have that much fun? Why not make up a scandal and get somebody? We can write down some notes, put a glass up to the office wall to see what we might hear. Imagine the fun we could have”.

All this is done instead of getting on with the business of running the country. This is done instead of dealing with issues of serious economic impact, such as the Asian crisis and the problems our finance minister was dealing with in Washington. We do not have questions about those issues. There has not been one question from the opposition dealing with the seriousness of the IMF situation, the stock markets around the world, and the Japan crisis. What do we have? Members say that we should not be playing politics.

It is more than just a joke, it is quite sad. Because in essence when we get a bill like this bill, which I agree is an omnibus bill that requires looking at a number of different amendments to legislation, members opposite want to play politics instead of dealing with the substantive issues.

I want to talk about the gambling issue. The member from the New Democratic Party had the unmitigated gall to cast aspersions around the country when the slippery slope of casino gambling was started by Premier Bob Rae in the province of Ontario and was exacerbated by this New Democratic Party premier. He put the entire economic future of the province of Ontario into the hands of gambling.

The casino in Windsor generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. Casino Rama is doing the same thing. There is also the casino of casinos in Niagara Falls. Can we close them? Can we say to those communities “Sorry ladies and gentlemen, we have to take all the jobs away”. The slippery slope was started by the New Democrats and they should at least have the courage and the moral fortitude to admit it.

People in Windsor look across the Detroit River and see a city of several million people about to embark on the construction and opening of three, count them, three mega casino projects. What will those casinos do to the casino in Windsor? It has a serious problem in competing with them.

The rolling of the dice referred to in the bill that often colloquially is called craps is not allowed in our country currently. This bill will at least give Casino Windsor and the one in Niagara which are across the border from major U.S. metropolises that will be in the casino business, the opportunity to survive.

What is our option? It is tragic, because what has really happened here is that provincial governments, and Ontario being the mother of all provincial governments in size and in economic impact in this country, now rely on the revenues from gambling. In fact, with the cutbacks and the changes, Mike Harris has now closed all the charity casinos in the province of Ontario.

Imagine that. The little charity casinos. Hockey organizations, scouting movements, volunteer groups from all across the country and certainly in my community in Mississauga relied on those charity casinos. What damage were they doing? The provincial government came along and said “They are unregulated. They are out of control. The charities are not making enough money so we are going to embark on a process to build 44 new casinos in the province of Ontario”.

The provincial government called for proposals. Proponents submitted proposals and spent millions of dollars. Then without any thought to the impact of having closed all the charity casinos, it said to the volunteers and the charities “You can no longer earn money from this endeavour”. The United Way, all kinds of groups who rely on them are now before municipal councils saying “What do we do now? Give us a bingo licence. Give us some lifeblood. Give us some opportunity to survive”.

Mike Harris and the Conservative government following in the footsteps of the creators of the great casino migration in the province of Ontario, the New Democrats, have banned the charity casinos and cancelled the RFP for the 44 casinos that were going to open. The charities would have been able at least to apply to the Trillium Foundation for some of their revenue but the province told those charities to find some other way to survive. What are their options? Quite clearly they have to look inward. They have to look to their membership. Only so many bake sales and garage sales can be held in an attempt to raise that lost revenue.

There is enough shame to go around at least in the province of Ontario on the issue of casinos. But we now have no choice. Whether a member is in opposition, whether it was that member's party that brought this in or whether it was the government, we have to ensure that these establishments survive. They have become huge generators of economic wealth on which the provinces now rely for health care, for social care and even for education because of the amount of money that is going into them. Therefore, welcome to crap city. That is what we are dealing with in this country because the casino phenomenon will indeed expand.

Another part of the bill which I think the opposition has failed to recognize as being critical is what it will do in the area of domestic violence. One of the changes in this omnibus bill deals with something we identified through working with the province which is that those who are arrested as a result of domestic violence often try to contact the victims. We all know this.

Having been in politics for almost 20 years, I and I know many other people in this place deal with battered women, with families who have suffered through domestic violence and know from experience that the perpetrators, the people who have been charged, try to contact the victims in domestic violence cases. Why do they do that? It is because they want to change the victim's mind. Or maybe they get their lawyer to offer some kind of deal or do some kind of plea so that the woman will back off. Most of the time it is the woman who is suffering from this violence.

This bill says that cannot be done any more. This bill says that they cannot contact the individual they are charged with battering. A lawyer cannot be sent as some kind of missionary to convince the battered or abused individual, often a wife, a girlfriend or a common law wife. They can no longer interfere.

Why is that important? I spent nine and a half years as a member of regional council and city council in the region of Peel and Mississauga. We administered social services during that time and still do. My wife is currently a member of that council. We dealt at the ground level with the results. We saw the women, in most cases women, with black eyes and broken bones as a result of domestic violence.

In addition to the tragedy of domestic violence all too often we see that women will back off, either through coercion, fear for their children or their own personal safety. They refuse to proceed. It is a scourge on society that we should not tolerate as parliamentarians, as city, local and regional councillors, as MPPs or MLAs. We must attack domestic violence and eliminate it from society as much as we possibly can.

If Bill C-51 is worth supporting for one reason and for one reason only, it is this aspect of the bill. To vote against the bill will mean this change will not occur.

I ask members opposite to stop playing the games I hear going on in this place and to look at the benefits of the bill and how it will assist the broad base of society. It will improve the justice system in relationship to domestic violence. It will say to the perpetrators, as I said before, that they cannot contact the victims or through some surreptitious manner have their lawyers do it.

Hopefully this will help social workers and people who deal with the victims of domestic violence to shore them up and give them the courage they need to go forward so that a conviction can take place and we do something about ending domestic violence.

That is not the only reason to support the bill. I suggest there are many others. There is the issue surrounding child prostitution. As well, the bill will benefit police enforcement. Why? Because it will permit police to use electronic surveillance to determine if a person has sought some kind of sexual favour from a minor. They can use that evidence to obtain a conviction. It is critically important and does not exist now. The bill will allow that to take place.

Members opposite might ask for a clause that toughens the punishment. The government has done that in other areas. This bill like all bills cannot be a panacea for all concerns in the justice system. We should not expect Bill C-51 to solve every problem.

No one in the House on either side, in any party, condones any kind of sexual offence against children. To suggest otherwise is playing politics. That brings me back to a private member's bill that we dealt with in this place earlier in the week, Bill C-284. There was an attempt to play politics with the issues surrounding amendments to the Criminal Records Act, the CRA, that deal with publishing the records of those who have been convicted of some form of sexual offence against a minor and are pardoned.

The solicitor general already has the discretion to disclose pardon records to bona fide organizations. Who are those organizations?

There are numerous examples of convicted people who have been paroled, finished their sentence or pardoned. I do not know of any who have been pardoned after being convicted of sexually abusing a minor, but certainly they complete their sentences and wind up at some point back in the community.

There are numerous examples of names being published, of photographs being published and of the communities in which they are to live being warned that these individuals are back. However it has been done appropriately. It has been done through the police force to ensure there is no abuse of anyone's rights.

That is one of the greatest things about this safe country of Canada, the country I welcomed Stafford and Lesley Woods to, the country I welcomed people from all over the world to. We are a safe country. We have a parliamentary democracy that allows us to put in place laws that will protect women and children, in fact our entire society.

The bill should be supported unanimously for many reasons, a couple of which I have outlined today.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition with the signatures of 51 Canadians, most of whom are from my riding and all of whom are members of the Mississauga Gospel Temple. They petition parliament to support a motion that would ensure the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from undue state interference. They also support the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments but as usual the member and some of his colleagues tend to be rather selective in their hearing process.

I did not say at any time—and Hansard will so record—that this bill allows the police to take DNA samples. I said the Criminal Code of Canada already allows police to take a DNA sample from a person at the time of charge if they have a warrant. That is the critical distinction the member so easily overlooked.

The point is that we are creating a framework for storing DNA samples and for using that information in the investigation of serious criminal offences. If a convicted criminal—and I emphasize the word convicted—reoffends and his DNA samples are in a database, the police will be able to identify the perpetrator at the crime scene through the use of modern technology and the database of DNA samples. They will know who they are looking for. If that person was convicted, is now out either on parole or has completed a sentence and reoffends, it will allow the police to use this facility to expedite their investigation dramatically.

The member opposite should not try to interpret my comments in this place in any way other than the spirit in which they were given, which is that innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenet of the Canadian justice system and one that I support.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

It is not a red herring. The member opposite said that it is a red herring. That is one of the differences in this country. It is one of the reasons we are judged to be such a well balanced country. We do not knee jerk. We do not have an over reaction or a simplistic solution.

The national data bank proposed in this bill will help police to better protect Canadians. Will it solve all the problems? No. But it is time we used the technology and the modern method of collecting this data to help police do their job. We believe that this may not be a panacea, that in a simplistic world members of the Reform Party might think this would be an easy way to target everybody, to number everybody, to put all their data into a file. I do not want to be an extremist or a radical by using terms like police state because I do not think it applies, but I really think that we have to analyze the benefits and the purpose of data collection.

The Criminal Code already allows police to take a DNA sample from a person at the time of charge or any other time as long as they first obtain a warrant to do so.

If we want to talk about red herrings, let us go back to the debate on gun control which members opposite love to do. The issue they like to fly is that the police will be able to knock on doors at any time they want, day or night, because they suspect the person might have a loaded pistol and want to do a full search. Members opposite know that is not true, yet through their association with the American gun associations and the gun lobby in general they continually put out this kind of information. It gets people all excited and whipped up. We saw the demonstration on the front lawn of Parliament Hill last week.

The amount of misinformation about issues like that is quite astounding. Members opposite know there is a requirement for a warrant to be issued, or you open your door and allow them to come in. There is none of this jackboot mentality where police officers can show up at three in the morning, kick the door down and run into the homes of law-abiding Canadian citizens.

In this case there is a definite comparison. The DNA sample could be taken if permission were granted. Perhaps that issue could be dealt with. Clearly, the sample can be taken if police obtain a warrant to do so. What is involved in the process? The police must go before a judge, a man or woman that I presume the Parliament of Canada has some faith and trust in, to seek a warrant to collect the sample at the point of a charge being laid.

I really believe that innocent until proven guilty is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and freedom in Canada. That does not mean that in any way whatsoever we would condone or be soft on crime. Quite the opposite. Some of the changes in the justice ministry of this government are absolutely groundbreaking, precedent setting and are saying to criminals that we are not prepared to allow them to take control of our streets and our communities. We are going to be tough.

This bill will put in place a data collection system for DNA samples taken appropriately, taken in fairness and taken in justice. It will ensure that Canada is still a wonderful, safe, free and democratic country but with strict rules. We will fight crime with this legislation and other bills as they are needed.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am somewhat surprised there was unanimous consent, but I am also appreciative of it.

This is really a fundamental Canadian issue and I think we should look at it from that perspective. I appreciate some of the concerns that some of my colleagues have expressed on this side of the House, as well as in opposition, about the timing of the collection of DNA material and the issue surrounding whether or not it should be available upon charge or only upon conviction. I appreciate that there have been concerns expressed about that and much of the debate around this whole legislation has been on the timing issue.

There is something very fundamental about Canada and it is probably one of the main reasons we continually get rated as the best country in the world in which to live. I know some members, particularly members opposite, get tired of hearing us talk about that, but it happens to be a reality. One of the fundamental reasons that we achieve that success, that rating in international circles, is the fairness that exists in our laws.

They are not perfect. There is no question that if allowing the police to gather DNA evidence on every charge would prevent certain crimes from occurring, then one would say, from a common sense perspective, not necessarily from a legal point of view or a constitutional point of view, that that might have some merit. I understand that. But when one balances that with the basic premise that innocence is clearly one of the rights in our justice system, until proven guilty, how far does one go? I guess that is the real issue that the government is wrestling with, that human rights activists wrestle with, that lawyers and obviously parliamentarians wrestle with.

This particular bill will go some distance toward ensuring that at least those who are convicted of a crime—and this is critical—will have information in a data bank. I think that will help in terms of repeat offenders or those who have served their time and paid their penalty to society. The data bank is there to help the police in their investigative process.

I think that one of the most important fundamental aspects of this is that it will provide a balance for police forces, both the national force and local forces right across this country, to access information and to access it quickly.

Who among us would not like the opportunity to prevent some of the tragedies we have seen in the past, such as the Bernardo case and the Homolka case? However, in that particular case would a DNA bank with information filed upon a charge have assisted the police? In fact when hon. members study the entire case they will note that the arrest was not made and that charges were not filed, so there would not have been an opportunity to know in advance or to have this information on file in advance. Upon conviction is a totally different story.

Could we think for one minute about filing this information upon arrest or upon charge? That would be the other point. Should it simply be done upon an individual being detained? What do we do concerning people coming into this country? There is potential for abuse when someone is held in detention and a DNA sample is put in the data base to be compiled in some central bureaucratic computerized storage compartment and used in whatever capacity. The potential for abuse is serious. It is not a step we need to take.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, some of those comments hardly merit a response. The hon. member's personal attacks about my background notwithstanding, if it is of any interest to him or if anyone really cares, I am indeed a small business person. The problem is that while I am here in Ottawa my business seems to be getting smaller because I am spending too much time here. In any event, I found that comment to be somewhat irrelevant.

One of the real issues here is the access to capital for leasehold improvements. The hon. member says that I do not know what I am talking about. I would tell the hon. member that the small business community out there faces extraordinary capital requirements to effect leasehold improvements so they can increase their sales, so they can market their products and so they can do more business. The gentleman from the Reform Party says that is a liability?

It is not a liability. Without leasehold improvements many small businesses would simply not be able to function.

The mentality that is there is just trying to find something wrong with the legislation, rather than recognizing the fact, in a non-partisan way, that indeed the Small Business Loans Act has been a success. This bill will make it more successful, will refine it and make capital available to small businesses. Why does the hon. member not support that?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to talk about the Small Business Loans Act and the impact of the changes.

When a member from the Reform Party asked the previous speaker in the question and comment period about a suggested reform, it was implied that we somehow made the atmosphere more competitive for lending institutions instead of dealing with people in small businesses who need assistance. I guess I should not be surprised that someone from the Reform Party would see that the goal would somehow be to help banks and lending institutions instead of helping people access the money they need to expand their businesses.

Clearly that is one of the fundamental differences between this side of the House and that side. We understand the reason the Small Business Loans Act has been such a success over the past 37 years. It has made available a reserve of capital to people who otherwise would not have access to it.

How does it work? The bank gets a bank guarantee for 90% of the loan. The loan is also targeted specifically to an asset that would be added to the business. It could be leasehold improvements. It could be a die-cast machine. It could be a transportation trailer, something that can actually have affixed a value which could be recovered if the small business were not successful and winds up owing the money.

The vast majority—well over 90% or closer to 95%—of small business loans are paid back, but there will always be as in any economy from time to time the odd problem. As a result we have a situation where some value will be added to the product financed by the lending institution. In essence that is what this bill does.

The member opposite also asks “What are the changes? What is new?” I invite him to take a look at them because I think they are quite significant.

First, one of the changes in this act will allow for the program to continue with a five year review instead of eliminating the ability to lend. That has been one of the problems in the past. There is a little black hole, a spot, a period of time, when it needs to come before parliament to get restarted or kick-started. This will allow for a five year mandatory review, but the lending authority side of the legislation will continue.

Second, and I find this particularly interesting, is that we are looking at a capital leasing pilot project. In some ways this does exactly what the member opposite in the Reform Party was asking. It expands the marketplace to allow leasing companies now to access a loan guarantee from the federal government.

It is an option for businesses in many cases that need to acquire very expensive equipment in the transportation or manufacturing sector. Perhaps they are at their maximum in terms of a line of credit or something of that nature with the bank, or they do not have the personal assets or the corporate assets to back up the loan, so they go to a leasing company. This part has not yet been designed, but it seems to be a positive change that would allow leasing companies across Canada to access loan guarantees and would encourage them to make loans to small business.

The third reform in the bill is a voluntary sector pilot project, which is extremely exciting. People in the voluntary sector who do such good work in the community may from time to time need to acquire something of a fairly substantial capital nature. This will allow them on a cost recovery basis to access money through the Small Business Loans Act.

Those are three of the changes the act will put in place that are very positive. It is not designed to favour big banks or lending institutions but rather to offer them some security when they are in a situation where they otherwise might not make the loan.

The Small Business Loans Act requires that the applicant fill out a very extensive business plan. It requires that the applicant does the homework. That is a positive thing, aside from the fact that it may give the government, the taxpayers and the lending institution more confidence in understanding how the loan will be repaid. To fill out a detailed business plan small business entrepreneurs have to understand their businesses, their problems and their strengths. It is very positive that the application is as detailed as it is.

The city of Mississauga in my riding of Mississauga West is known as a city of small businesses. Many of the businesses will benefit from the changes in the bill. Many of them have benefited over the last 37 years from the Small Business Loans Act which has been put forward by everyone who has held government in the country over the last 37 years.

In 1998 the business directory in Mississauga listed just under 10,000 business. Out of those 33% had between one and four employees and another 25% had between five and nine employees. Almost 60% of the businesses in Mississauga have fewer than 10 employees. When we add in the other 10 to 20 employees it is 18%. Almost 80% of the businesses in my city run businesses with fewer than 20 employees. In an area like mine some understanding of the significance of small business is critical.

I was privileged in 1988-89 to be appointed as the small business advocate by then Premier David Peterson in the province of Ontario. We did some analyses. Every year the small business advocate would file a report with the Ontario legislature on the state of small business. We found that the top three problems concerning small business in those days—and from my prospective in Mississauga they continue to be the top three problems—were access to properly qualified and trained staff and the ability to keep them once they have been trained, the taxation burden, and access to capital.

The Small Business Loans Act improves access to capital for small businesses. It lays out the ground rules so they understand what is involved and gives some confidence to the financial sector that these loans can be made without total fear they will not be paid back.

On the issue of taxation, it is my view that small business, not unlike every other sector of our society, feels that we are indeed taxed too high. The finance minister made announcements on tax reductions in the last budget and there will be more announcements coming on tax reduction. I would suggest to all members, when I hear all the hue and cry about employment insurance premiums, et cetera, that the small business people in this country want to have a fiscally responsible and prudent government. They want to see us tackle the debt.

I have round tables four times a year in my community with business people and the number one issue I hear about from those business people is that we have to get a handle on the debt. The debt alone is a serious problem. These business people want us to have a proper, responsible financial plan and the small business loan legislation is part and parcel of it. It is one of the legs in the stool that will continue to make our economy as great as it is.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present that in essence asks parliament to amend the Divorce Act to allow for spouses, parents and grandparents proper access to or custody of the children involved in such a divorce.