Steve Mahoney

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. It seems to me that the allegations being made are an attempt to perhaps hide some of the problems that have arisen on that side of the House. When members start casting aspersions, as these people have done, it reflects upon all of us. I would suggest that one of our members may have climbed over a table but she did not slide under it the way those people have.

I would like to ask the member to respond to the flip-flop on pensions. They came to the House saying that they would reject the pension. They got here, went right up to the trough and dove in. I would like to ask him about not accepting a car and driver for the leader and not accepting Stornoway as the principal residence.

It seems to me that if there are problems of ethics, frankly they are on that side of the House and they are hurting the reputation of this place and every member in it.

[Housing, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I too want to congratulate that member and all members of the task force for their excellent report.

The government currently provides $1.9 billion annually on housing assistance for lower income Canadians, including first nations, and a $753 million strategy to address homelessness. CMHC mortgage insurance has helped one in three Canadians buy a home. A new $1.36 billion affordable housing initiative with the province and territories has been announced. This report is another--

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for my promotion. I am not the Deputy Prime Minister. I would love to be but I am afraid I have not quite reached that exalted office yet. One never knows, stranger things have happened.

The government does respect the work of committees. I see my colleague who I believe is from New Westminster. He and I have both recently come back and are in the process of writing a major report that deals in some ways with security around airports. He told us at committee this morning some interesting things, and we will be investigating how we can improve certain security aspects in relation to immigration.

The government obviously will not agree with every recommendation from every member on either side of the House. The government has a higher obligation and that is to ensure the security and safety of its citizens. If we do nothing else, and some would say that is exactly what we do, we have to live up to that obligation.

Sometimes some great ideas come out of committees that perhaps do not make it into a particular bill. That does not mean they will not live to perhaps find themselves in regulations in a different way. The government is open. I can assure the member it listens to its own members. Whether the member wants to believe this or not, we even listen the odd time to the little smidgeon of good ideas that sometimes come from across the floor.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford.

I can agree with the opposition on one thing in this particular debate. Canadians are not generally comfortable nor used to legislating aspects of security. The issues that have followed in this country, the United States and the world following September 11 are issues that we are not familiar with. However we have an obligation as parliamentarians to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

There is one prime obligation that all of us in every party, in every seat in this House has and that is to ensure safety for our citizens. Therefore we must take what some might call extraordinary measures.

I can appreciate the fact that some from the legal profession in this place, who at times take unfair criticism, want to debate this issue from the point of view of someone's civil rights or liberties. However I must say that I honestly believe that Canadians, who I represent and the vast majority of Canadians, understand that times have changed since September 11 and perhaps the freest country, the best democracy in the world, needs to tighten up in some areas. Perhaps we need to make some changes and people expect us to do that.

I will deal with some of the criticism that I have heard. One is that the sharing of information between the airlines, the RCMP and CSIS would open up potential abuse of people's rights. There are guidelines that would require that information to only be shared with senior designated people within those two law enforcement agencies.

The sharing of information could only be done when it related to someone who was a potential terrorist, thought to be a terrorist, a terrorist threat, or in the case of criminal activity, someone who was facing an outstanding warrant that could result in a prison sentence in excess of five years. Who would that be? The crimes that carry a sentence in excess of five years in this country are crimes like murder and kidnapping.

Are we saying it is wrong for an airline to contact the RCMP to say it has information on a passenger on an inbound flight who has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest for murder? If people were innocent one would think they would want to face their accusers, come forward to the authorities and defend themselves. There would be a strong possibility that the individual was fleeing and did not want to be arrested. It astounds me that we would object to sharing that kind of information.

The other aspect could deal with a violation of our immigration act. If we have an outstanding deportation against individuals and they are known to be on a particular flight coming into Canada, why would we not want to share the information so that someone could be there to greet them when they disembark so we could take them into custody and thereby deport them?

We have heard cries of indignation from people opposite that our deportation system is not tough enough, that we issue deportation orders and then do not carry them out. Members know that our immigration and enforcement staff around the world are overworked. We just met this morning to discuss the results of the immigration committee travelling around the world meeting with our staff and seeing what some of the pressures are. This is a tool that could help alleviate some of those problems and could ensure that we could deal with individuals who were either facing a warrant for their arrest, or were in violation of a deportation order under the immigration act.

I find it astounding that members on either side of the House would stand up to their constituents and say they think it is too big brotherish, too much information and that the government should not have a right to gather that information.

That is ridiculous. There are safeguards in the bill. For example, if Transport Canada is given certain information, that information can be acted upon and perhaps passed on to the authorities, but then must be destroyed by Transport Canada within seven days. We are not talking about building some kind of secret file on someone, taking away someone's rights or tracking people who might be going somewhere without the knowledge of their spouse or something of that nature. We are talking about serious problems. We need to face the fact after September 11 we need to be serious.

Let me deal with another issue and that is the objections, which have come primarily from the leader of the fifth party, to the ability of a minister to issue an interim order in an emergency. The member opposite, the leader of that party, said that we already had that power under the Emergencies Act. What he has neglected to tell people is that the only way that can be implemented is if we get provincial agreement on the particular circumstance. The minister would have to get cabinet, the provinces and get everybody on side to agree before we could issue an emergency order. Is that not interesting? What would have happened following September 11 if we had to do all that before we could have closed the skies over this country, knowing that there were aircraft with potential terrorists on board?

In fact at one point, at 11 o'clock in the morning of September 11, I was sitting with the president of the Credit Valley Hospital who was informed that there was an aircraft, with a suspected hijacker in control, on its way to Pearson Airport and the hospital was put on full alert to deal with possible casualties, injured people or worse. Should our minister not have the right, given the circumstances under which we live, to act quickly? I can hear the cries of indignation and the demands for resignation if a minister failed to do so.

The other thing that is not told in this story is that the only way we can actually use the Emergencies Act is if we declare the problem to be global. Let us think about that. Certainly what happened on 9/11 was a global problem. We may not have had a problem in that regard. Let us talk about another situation. What about forcing the closing of cockpit doors? What about Health Canada in the case of a chemical attack or a problem? Should the minister not have the ability to give an order to deal with those kinds of emergencies and not get caught up in the matter of whether it is global or not, getting cabinet's approval at a meeting and getting together with the provinces to get them on side? Meanwhile we have a serious problem occurring somewhere in our country. We have an obligation to put in place a tough bill.

Another aspect of this is that the government listened. The government listened to the opposition, whether it wants to accept it or not. The government listened to members of our own caucus. The government listened to the Canadian people. It then said that Bill C-42 was perhaps too restrictive and that it did not give us the tools we needed. Therefore it withdrew Bill C-42 and submitted another bill.

This is not an admission of failure. We needed to act after September 11 and we did act. The accusations that we were slow and that we did nothing were totally unfair, uncalled for and untrue. We will continue to act with the bill to ensure that the civil rights of people are fairly balanced with a bill that gives our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to protect the Canadian public. There is nothing more sacred in the duty of a member of parliament than to live up to that obligation. I honestly believe the bill does that.

[Immigration, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in politics 60 minutes can be a lifetime. It can also be filled with false accusations and misleading information as we saw last Sunday evening. For former Canadian civil servants and the Canadian Alliance to try to link our immigration and refugee system to terrorism and the tragic events of September 11 is not only dishonest, it is journalistic sensationalism.

Canadians know that all of the 19 terrorists involved in the World Trade Center attack were in the U.S. legally. Canadians know that we live in a global world and we are bound to have some bad guys in our system, but so do the Americans, the British, the French and every other open democratic country. The government is working hard with our friends south of the border on these issues.

To trash Canada only fuels the view that immigration is bad. Immigration is what has built this country and it will continue to do so.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is astounding. If this is a holiday, I think I will pass. It is not exactly what I would call a day at the beach.

I think all members realize that people work diligently and have their own style and interests. I find it interesting to listen to a debate on issues that are not even in the bill we are debating. Obviously the holiday issue is not here. The issue of election donations is nowhere in the wording. Not once was I able to look through any of the documentation and find anything about beer. Maybe there is a relationship between beer, holidays and good times, I do not know, but it does not deal with the issue at hand.

In the short time I have left I will focus on the bill, which would be an unexpected treat I am sure for members opposite. The bill does three things. First, it is designed to provide a modern legislative framework for a simpler and more certain administrative system that recognizes current industry practices. We are talking about the tobacco industry, the spirits industry and the wine industry. We are not talking about beer. I am sorry but it is not here.

For years we have heard people say that the government should respond to current industry practices, whatever they may be, so that we can help people who are fighting against foreign competition and who are dealing with the burden of collecting and remitting taxes. It puts in place a more modern system to allow people to pay the tax at the time they actually sell the product instead of when it goes into a warehouse. That seems to me to be something the industry would want and, as my friend says, that everybody would want, including my colleagues on the other side.

I do not understand. They want to continue casting aspersions against members on this side, throwing out all kinds of nasty comments about political fundraising and making comments that do not relate to Bill C-47.

The second thing the bill does is it facilitates greater efficiency and fairness for all parties. Who is against that? This is an industry that needs to be modernized from the point of view of tax revenue. It is $3.4 billion to the federal treasury. We are not talking about small potatoes. This is a major revenue generator for the Canadian public and for the government so that we can deliver the programs that need to be delivered to the benefit of all Canadians.

This fairness to all parties issue will lead to improved administration. Are the folks on the other side against that? I do not think they are. It will lead to improved administration and reduced compliance costs.

Let us take a look at what happened with the merger of the GST and the PST in the maritimes. We tend to forget. We always say that we have one taxpayer in the country. Would it not be interesting if we only had one tax collector? We have all these different taxes going out by all these different levels of government. It is unfortunate that Ontario and the western provinces refuse to co-operate in terms of tax collection so that we can reduce the administrative burden. The bill would make it easier for companies to comply with the collection of those taxes.

The third thing the bill does is it ensures the continued protection of the $3.4 billion in excise tax revenue. Why not deal with the substance of the bill instead of the allegations and the nonsense? Why not deal with related issues such as who actually will provide the retail facilities?

In my province of Ontario we all hold our breath as we watch the current Ontario government sell off Ontario Hydro. We all suspect that the next item on the list might just be the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

It is an interesting phenomenon: taking what amounts to a public monopoly and turning it into a private monopoly with the absolute reality that the taxpayers, the people who are the purchasers of the product, will face increased costs. Why not do what the bill does in terms of providing more effective and efficient operations for the industry rather than just selling off pieces of it willy-nilly wherever the government seems to think it may be a good political hit?

It is provincial but there is a relationship. I will use the relationship of the PST and the GST as they are collected on a co-ordinated basis. What we are talking about is more efficiency and more opportunity for the industry and government to work together.

I understand that perhaps members of the Bloc are against that kind of efficiency. They would rather use any opportunity they get to raise a point of order or to speak to issues that have nothing to do with the bill. They would rather use it to perhaps make themselves look a little better back home. Being at 25% or less in the polls in the province of Quebec causes them some concern, and I understand that.

What we are dealing with here is the streamlining of a collection mechanism that generates a substantial amount of revenue. Why not talk about the spin off effects? Why not talk about the taxation effect on smuggling?

We will all recall when we had boats running across the river and people shooting guns in the middle of the night. The police were very concerned about the situation when the smuggling was going on. We all remember those days with great trepidation.

Another issue that I think is very serious in the area of tobacco is the impact on our young people. Would taxation have an impact on whether or not these young people buy single cigarettes in the schoolyard while people actually treat them as contraband and sell them to young people? I did not hear any concerns being expressed on the impact this will have on our young people. We know from targeted experience that young girls are prime candidates to begin smoking because of the peer pressure that exists.

All of this ties in and is related to the tax burden that is involved in this industry.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

The member says shame. It is not a shame.

It is the same as investments in our technology partnerships fund. It allows for companies to do research and development, to do retooling. The taxpayer gets the money back. In the case of the technology partnerships fund, the taxpayer actually shares in the benefits by getting paid dividends. I would be happy to share many examples of that with the member opposite.

Handouts and freebies are not on. Good business decisions to ensure that jobs are protected and that economic development works in our communities is what our government is all about.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that is actually the stated position of the official opposition, unless of course it has to do with farm subsidies or softwood lumber when we would not want to let the free market take over there, we would want to make sure we get in there and help out. The point is I think there has to be a balance.

Let me be clear that we did not totally ignore the General Motors plant in the province of Quebec. In fact, when GM announced its retrofit of $450 million, $220 million of that was lent by both the federal and the provincial governments. It was given an interest free period to 2017.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Yes, at any price. The fact of the matter is the people of Quebec understand that their economic future and growth will occur by being solidly supportive of this country, not separating into a separate political unit, not going off on their own. There would be nowhere to go to complain under a separatist government. They would have to look in the mirror. Even the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said publicly that he supported the government in the efforts being put forth to try to save the GM plant.

If they want to condemn us, perhaps they had better look in the mirror because they should be condemning themselves.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, usually when one does not have something to say, one attacks someone personally. I will try to avoid that and apologize for my scratchy throat if that is what the member is hearing.

Let me say I agree with the member on one thing. I sure as heck am anti-separatist, and that can be taken to the bank. I believe we have to keep this country together. I believe most Quebecers want to keep this country together.