Steve Mahoney

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite proves that some thoughts are neither long nor deep. However, I would suggest that the question is a fair question. In fact, the Reform Party put the issue under some disguise yesterday when it put its motion forward. It tried to wrap it in the justice system.

If the member wants, he could look at my remarks in Hansard . It is my view that one should neither get rights nor lose rights because of their sexual orientation. I have no difficulty with that. It is important that both of those are taken in context: one should neither get rights nor lose rights because of their choice of sexual orientation.

I do not much care what anyone does with their own private life. I do not think it drives a political agenda. We should not discriminate against anyone in this country. It is unfair.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with the extreme view that this group wants to take of the justice system, we get the feeling that there is a lynch mob walking down the street with a noose. They are tightening the knot and they are banging on the sheriff's door saying “Let me have that person out here. We are going to string him up”.

They want to give that impression. It is just not the truth. I will admit that there are problems in the justice system, but any system with people in it will have problems. There is no question. There are good guys and bad guys. There is no question that there are difficulties.

This government is committed to ensuring that there is stability. That is the key, bringing stability into the justice system. Do not subject it to the possibility of having a judge run for election or giving a parliamentarian the power to overturn a judge's decision.

Appeal it, yes; repeal it, no. Stability will maintain good justice in this country.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect members opposite do not like what I am saying. I am sure they will not like what I am about to say.

The whole aspect of delivering justice to the Canadian people is one where this party would strongly disagree with anything that the justice critic opposite or any of his colleagues would have to say. Their solution to providing justice in this country is to change the way the government works in terms of the relationship with the provinces and municipalities.

The member might not think it is on topic but it clearly is because everything that goes on in the estimates debate has to do with what this government is spending. If there is too much spent in one area, it cannot be spent in another. That is fairly fundamental and simple for the Canadian people to understand.

What the Reform would do is totally turn our Confederation upside down. I do not see the justice in that. Let me share an example. This is from the so-called new Canada act that Reform has brought forward. For the member's comfort I will relate it back to the issue at hand here.

The Reform Party's suggestion is that the Government of Canada hereby recognize municipal governments as the first level of government and agrees to ensure municipal government representation at federal-provincial conferences.

I was a councillor for almost 10 years. My wife sits on municipal council in Mississauga in the region of Peel. I have very strong roots in municipal government.

When we look at the impact of policing, at the impact of clogged up courts, at the backlog that exists in our community and we look at the cost of crime in our community, our municipal governments are very much impacted by the justice estimates and by the entire justice system. The Reform Party suggests it will recognize them in some sort of special category.

What Reform does not say is that it is going to transfer all powers in this federation to the provinces. Guess what happens when that is done? Guess who takes it in the end? It is the municipalities because they are creatures of the provincial governments. They indeed rely on the fairness of provincial governments to redistribute and pass on assistance in the form of transfer payments for social services, education, health care and justice. Municipalities rely on the provinces. Yet Reform would give with one hand and take away with the other hand and put all of the pressure on the property tax.

What we would have I would argue is a justice system under the Reform Party that simply would not have the strength of the national system. It would not have the backing of the national taxpayer and the strength of a united Canada. Indeed it would be put out to the provincial level which in turn would foist it off on the municipalities and they would wind up putting it on to the property taxpayer.

I do not care what estimates we want to talk about or debate in this place. I would remind members opposite that there is only one taxpayer and that taxpayer pays property tax, sales tax, provincial taxes and federal taxes. People just do not buy the rejigging that sounds like wonderful stuff by the Reform Party. It is a matter of trust.

If we want to talk about who should be responsible for spending the justice dollar, because that is what we are talking about here, should it be the federal government?

Would the Canadian taxpayers trust someone, and those members might not like this example, who said “I am not going to do this,” and then got elected and immediately did it. “I am not going to accept the limo,” and now rides around in a limo. “I am not going to live in Stornoway,” and now lives in Stornoway.

Would the Canadian people trust a party with the estimates in the justice department that was actually entering into negotiations with the party that wants to destroy the country? They would form what was it called, the Re-Bloc party. Imagine a justice system that was run by some coalition, separatists yanking power away from the central federation, trying to take everything back into their hands so they can do it their way, and another party bent on regional disparities. Imagine what kind of a justice system that would be. I was asked to speak about justice issues and I am doing that.

I see the hon. member for Saint John who I was going to suggest should indeed be the leader of the united right. There might then at least be some type of tempering, instead of the extremists, instead of this particular leader of this particular party.

The question is what are the average Canadians' views of politicians and what they stand for and what they say they will do?

We are talking about things that are as critical and as important as the administration of justice in this country. This country was built on democratic principles that are envied all over the world. We are not only envied for our justice system, we are also envied for the success that we have had with our fiscal programs since 1993.

In fact, the deputy minister of finance, Mr. Scott, appeared before the public accounts committee earlier today. This certainly impacts on justice estimates because there is only so much money to go around in every department. Every department must get its allocation and we would say that our justice system and our justice department should indeed have clear access to a fair allocation of the national revenue.

The deputy minister talked about what a job this government has done since 1993. It has put the justice department and every other department on firm, sound financial footing. There is no question that without fiscal responsibility there would be no justice. There is no question that without strong leadership there would be no justice.

It is absolutely clear to me that the policies that are espoused by the Reform politicians to totally denigrate the Canadian institution, to totally denigrate the justice system and to turn it over to the hands of pork-barrel politicians is wrong. It is not justice. It is not something this government or the Canadian people will tolerate, no matter how much they get up with their puffery and their nonsense. The Canadian people know that in Reform's policies there is clearly no justice.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I will be on topic. I would not want to lose your confidence. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could refrain if I might respectfully suggest from accepting frivolous points of order.

In any kind of speech in this place, one must talk about the broad range of issues as they affect the Canadian taxpayers and the justice system.

We saw a motion in this place on the Reform Party's idea of what justice should be in this country. Reformers think they should have the control over the judges. Of course that would have a tremendous impact I might add on the estimates, on the spending. I would suggest that in the Reform Party's attitude toward justice—and I do not know how many times you want me to mention the word justice but I am quite prepared to do it for the next 10 or 15 minutes just to prove to you that there is indeed justice in what I am trying to say—there is no justice in what the Reform Party is putting forward.

Justice I might add is a subjective perspective depending on your definition of justice. My definition of justice in this country is a parliamentary democracy with a separate judiciary that is not influenced by the kind of nonsense we have seen being perpetrated and which results in a lack of fairness and justice to the Canadian taxpayer.

The reality is that members of the Reform Party would bring a new way of doing justice to the Canadian parliament. One of their ideas was that they thought it was just and the leader of the Reform Party thought it was just which thereby would imply a certain amount of justice, if he were not to occupy Stornoway. He said “If I am elected I will not occupy Stornoway”. Where is the justice?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting. The members just simply get up and continue to raise the same issue.

There is no question this debate is on the motion and the justice estimates. It has to do with the entire estimate portfolio, indeed the entire reason we are in this place. Canadians need to know why we are here. That is my point. I think it is on topic. I know the member would not understand. I will send him over the written notes with some crayons if he would like, and he can follow the bouncing ball.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Well maybe he could not sneak up. There would not be much running and there would not be a lot of sneaking. But they are going to steal the teacher's apple. They think “Oh goody goody” and they run back. This is the new kind of politics the Reform Party has brought to Ottawa. Reform members are stealing apples. It is truly a remarkable thing to watch.

When Canadians watch the debate in this place they must wonder “What are these guys talking about? They are supposed to be debating estimates and spending”. The government record is quite extensive. We are supposed to be talking about how we have managed the debt, about how when this government took office we inherited a $42 billion deficit, get the size of that. Most people would look at that and say there is no hope, there is no opportunity, there is no chance for us to get out of this terrible hole.

That is not what this government did. We reduced the size of government by $14 billion. It is a smaller government. It is more efficient.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, would you reset the clock. I would like a full, uninterrupted 20 minutes. I am sure that will be difficult. It is quite clear to me what the strategy is. The thin skinned members on the opposite benches simply rise every time a member says something they do not agree with. They interrupt the obvious wonderful flow of the speech in an attempt to throw the person off. What they fail to understand is that they simply add ammunition. So, Mr. Speaker, allow them to carry on if that is what they want to do as we debate this very important issue of the justice estimates.

The member points out in this debate that we are here because of a Liberal motion. He is right. I think the people should know that earlier today, instead of debating the estimates of the justice department and every other department, we wasted hours of debate because of the members opposite. They are like the little kids in school who know the teacher has an apple in the drawer. They are all planning. They say “You divert their attention and when they are not looking, the member from White Rose is going to sneak up and steal the apple and he is going to run back to his seat”.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I got two sentences out and the member is up on a point of order. Certainly I intend to talk about the justice estimates. To prove there is in this situation very little justice I was explaining why we are here to this extent going on until 4 a.m. We are here because the members opposite seem to think they are the only ones in this place who have anything to put into the system of justice in the country. They come into town riding on their ponies with backs bowed because of the weight of the guns at their sides, shooting them up in the air. They are going to solve all of these problems. These people are just wonderful.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to me as we head into the marathon debate that is going to 4 a.m. that I am sure the Canadian public will understand the importance of our staying in this place and debating until 4 a.m. I am sure we will be even more productive than we normally are as the midnight hour comes and we move on.

I would like to explain to the millions of viewers why we are actually going to be here until 4 a.m. This is the new brand of politics that we heard the leader of the Reform Party and all of his cohorts talk about during the campaign, how they were going to do things differently. In all the speeches earlier this afternoon leading up to this debate we heard—

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that was about except that they are awfully sensitive.

The point of the analogy is that they are taking a subject which should stand in debate on its own merits, the role of the two links of parliamentary procedure in the judiciary. Were they putting it into a higher level of debate we could have a clear debate and establish the different guidelines.

I know what Reformers want. They want shoot 'em up justice. They want to elect their judges. They want the power to tell a judge “If you don't do what we say we are going to fire you. We are going to change your decision because we are elected and you are not”.

I know what they want. It is not what Canadians want. Canadians do not want their courts to make quick, bad decisions. They want them to be well thought out and the government decision should also be well thought out.