Steve Mahoney

[Justice, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has called for extreme right wing changes to Canada's criminal justice system. It favours a two strikes and your out law that would jail young Canadians for life if they commit two relatively minor offences.

Some of Reform's extreme ideas include public scorn, caning and other forms of corporal punishment. Reform members even wanted to send a parliamentary delegation to Singapore to witness the caning of young offenders in that country.

Is this what Canadians want? No. Canadians want public policy that makes sense. That is why this government launched a balanced strategy to renew our youth justice system, a strategy that emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation, not public beatings. That is why we have established a DNA bank to store samples and why we increased crime prevention funding by $32 million a year. That is why we passed tough anti-gang legislation and why, to the consternation of the Reform Party, we introduced gun control.

This government has always made crime prevention a priority and to the Reform agenda I say no.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we take it to a different level than talking about the size of our individual brains or lack thereof. I appreciate the question.

The member will know that the province of Manitoba to which he refers incarcerates more young people than any other province in the country. It should be examined as to why that is happening.

We heard a speech earlier by a member from the New Democrats who talked about having his home broken into and the violence he has experienced at home in his riding. That is absolutely shameful. No one here is saying that there are not problems with our young people. We believe that the way to treat those problems is to work co-operatively with the provinces to try to put in place programs that will rehabilitate and help these young people lead normal productive lives.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the best four years of my life were not in grade nine, unlike the member opposite.

To answer, the problem is very real in terms of discipline within the schools, but discipline is not violence. I went to a catholic boarding school. Does the member want to talk about discipline? Does he want to talk about violence? I would be delighted to tell him some stories that would curl what little hair sits on top of his head. I can say that I know a little bit about this from some personal firsthand experience in a school like that.

Generally what happens is a parent will say “I believe in corporal punishment as long as you are going to strap the kid who sits beside my Johnny. That will scare the dickens out of my Johnny, but do not strap my Johnny”. You would hear that as a principal, Mr. Speaker. He would hear that as a principal. That is the problem. We have to give our teachers the authority to discipline young people, but that is not the strap, that is not the cane and it sure as hell is not a piece of wood.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. It becomes a little frustrating when we read some of the things those hon. members have talked about.

There is another problem. The hon. members from the “ing” party across are confused. Some of the members want to scrap the Young Offenders Act and some of them simply want to amend it. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan stated in Hansard in March 1998 “As the justice minister dreams about changes to the Young Offenders Act, violent acts among youth are escalating and revealing why the Young Offenders Act should be scrapped”. Then we have others like the member from Wild Rose saying “When are you going to amend the Young Offenders Act?”

We have some of the extreme right saying to scrap it and then we have others who generally are seen as being on the even more extreme right saying to amend it. Their own policies in this place do not coincide with the policies of their own party.

I would like to hear one of those members stand up and tell me why they would not support replacing the Young Offenders Act with new stronger youth justice legislation. That has been announced by our minister. Why would they not support that? Do they just want to be negative? Do they not want to have input into it? This is a policy. They have a chance to have input into it. All Canadians will have that chance.

Why would they not support expanding the offences for which a young offender can receive an adult sentence to include a pattern of serious violent offences? I have heard members opposite call for that. The minister has said she agrees with that.

What seems to be the problem here? Why do we not just get on with it? Let us take that policy statement and build it into legislation. That is what the Canadian people expect us to do.

The minister would not agree to lower the age to 10 but why would it be 10 by the members opposite? Why not nine? Why not eight? In fact, as a parent of three young men I am a firm believer that if you have not put your values into your children by the time they are seven years old, then you may have lost them. The first seven years of a young person's life are probably the most critical years in their entire life. Why not seven?

Let us do what they have suggested. Seven years old, they commit a crime, we throw them away. They do it again, we throw them in a dungeon and lock them up. What kind of a society would we be purporting to represent if we were to adopt those kinds of policies?

The minister has said that the bill will lower the age limit for which young offenders are presumed liable to adult sentences from 16 to 14. Why would they not support that? It is a positive step in the right direction, things that many members opposite have called for, some who are not quite so extreme.

It would expand the provisions allowing the publication of the names of young offenders who have been convicted and who qualify for adult sentences. But no, what the Reform Party wants does not matter if they qualify for an adult sentence or not. If they commit a crime, their names should be published. They should be tarred for the rest of their life, instead of working with those young people to help educate them, to help teach them that violence is not a solution. They are not taught that by smacking them on the back with a cane or hitting them on the rump with a piece of wood. That party is spouting archaic nonsense. Those members should be ashamed of themselves.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to agree with that. Let me share with everyone something spoken by one of the Reform Party members. I believe the member for Wild Rose said in the May 10, 1994 Edmonton Journal “I do not think that kind of punishment hurts one doggone bit”. He was referring to caning. “In fact I think it probably has more effect than what we do today”.

The justice critic for the “ing” party decided that he wanted to travel to Singapore to study the merits of introducing caning to Canada's justice system. What a spectacle. Imagine in our public places, in our courtyards, in our school yards, in our homes that we would actually resort to caning as a solution to violence. That is the Reform mentality. If we cane them it will hurt so they will stop being violent.

I do not profess to be an expert, unlike many members opposite, but I have read many articles written by experts and any expert will tell us that violence begets violence. That is exactly the kind of thing we want to stop.

The same member went on to say “I do not think caning is too extreme”. That is from the Calgary Herald of May 10, 1994.

The Reform Party, or the “ing” party as I like to call it, has not excluded young offenders from what it refers to as its two strike and you are out policy. This would mean, as the justice critic who is sitting here right now listening to this, said in the Toronto Sun of August 15, 1996 “the repeat offender”—and because they have not excluded young offenders, young offenders would be included in this policy—“will never see the light of day after committing his second act”.

That is just terrific. That is going to solve our problems. We will throw them in a dungeon, lock them up and forget about them. Young offenders need to be treated properly by professionals not locked up in some medieval archaic way as that party would profess.

I see the member from Wild Rose has come in, the member who was illustriously quoted in the Edmonton Sun in March 1995 in referring to his time as a school principal. He saw remarkable change in behaviour among those who had “tasted a piece of wood”. That is just brilliant.

It is a remarkable quantum leap to go from the motion that was put very responsibly by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, whom I saw on Canada AM this morning speaking about his policy on the headstart program dealing with young people. It is a quantum leap in logic to go from dealing with a pregnant woman and helping her give birth and raise a healthy, happy child to caning, to hitting them with a piece of wood.

Where in the world did you guys come from? When they loaded up the wagon train to come east I guess they checked their brains at the Manitoba border.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will suggest through you that they may not think my remarks are particularly good.

I was interested in one of the comments made by the minister in response to a question from a member opposite. She said that their issue is for their short term political purposes. Just about everything they do in here is for their short term political purposes. The operative phrase should be short term. That is exactly what they do. They do not think in the bigger picture or in the long term about the consequences of some of their policies.

I like to think of them not so much as the Reform Party, but as the “ing” party because the Reform Party's three cornerstones are based on caning, whipping and hanging. Those are the solutions of the “ing” party.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

You may not enjoy them. You say good, but you may not enjoy them. I can assure you that some of them will reflect on your philosophy and policies. I do not think they will—

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I actually said it because I wanted to have an opportunity, if the members do not object, to put some thoughts on the record on this very important issue.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

You are doing it because you want to give it away in the NDP. They want to jack up the prices, cut the taxes, help the wealthy. That is all they want. They are absolutely off base.

This is balanced. This is good government policy. It is receiptable and it is going to help build a great dynamic country for your children and mine.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

They go on about the millennium fund. Should it come as a surprise? Let us take a look at our electoral system.

The Canadian electorate sent a majority government here. They said “Fundamentally we like what you stand for. We like the proposals on how the budget will be balanced and on how the surplus will be dealt with. We think it makes sense”. They sent us here. So we introduced a budget. We introduced a historic millennium scholarship fund of $2.5 billion to help young people. On average it will mean $3,000 per year per student. It will not only be based on merit, it will be based on need.

We recognized that these young people needed help so we introduced measures to help with debt repayment which are unprecedented. There will be tax relief for interest on all student loans. Why would you be opposed to that? It is unbelievable. It is unthinkable. It is outrageous. Phone your constituents. Members of the Reform Party always say they are to vote this way unless their constituents call and tell them to vote a different way. Phone them on this one. I think you will find by and large, they will support it. Check with them. Maybe just maybe, you might change your position.

Interest relief extended to more graduates. We are not talking about holus-bolus elimination of all tuition as the NDP in its somewhat myopic and naive view of the world would do. “Just wipe out the cost. Taxpayers will take care of everything. There is nothing to worry about. It is okay”. In the world of socialism, they are totally out to lunch on that.

Then on the other extreme, an extended repayment period for those who need it. Imagine that the Reform Party is against that. Of course the Reform Party's solution and the right wing solution to all of this is simply to reduce taxes. They have no concern whatsoever for those young people who are struggling through school whose last concern is how much they are paying in taxes. Their concern is how they can afford their post-secondary education.

We believe very strongly that the millennium scholarship fund will not solve all the problems but it will sure go a long way toward helping people have better access, more affordable access to post-secondary education.

There are lots of examples in the world. The Republic of Ireland is one of the most dynamic successful economies in Europe with much of it coming I would admit from EU financing. Why are people interested in investing in the Republic of Ireland? It is not only because of the historic peace agreement but they have been doing it for years in the Republic of Ireland because of the quality of the training and the education of the young people in that country. It actually is a model we should look at.

It is interesting to hear members from the Bloc stand up and say that we are interfering in provincial jurisdiction. They are the same people who stand up and whine and complain because the government will not give them more money, will not give them more authority, will not give them more autonomy, will not allow them to separate and destroy this country. They got that right. We are not going to let them do that.

What this plan does is it allows for co-operation with the provincial governments. It allows for co-operation. It actually allows for money from the $2.5 billion to be invested and to grow and the interest to be used. It allows for endowments to come from the private sector and that can increase the amount of money available. There would be a lot of interest in that.

I think of the agreements the University of Waterloo has entered into in the Kitchener—Waterloo community. Members opposite should look at how the university community works well with the private sector. Why? Because it has an interest. It wants to turn out good quality graduates.

Members opposite really should take a serious look at the future and the need to help our young people increase their education.