Steve Mahoney

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

The member opposite who is chirping, with due respect through you, Mr. Speaker, is not quite sure which party she wishes to be part of.

The point is that many of the policies that came out of that party were in fact put forward by that member and others. There is just no consistency in the opposition position that yesterday we should have cut and today we should pour money in. Where do the opposition members get their figures? Do they do their homework? I would suggest not.

Three billion dollars sounds like a good figure: $2 billion in defence spending, another $1 billion in security spending. Cut non-priority areas. Cut HRDC.

The damage that the official opposition has done to the economy of this nation with the attacks that it launched some time ago on the HRDC ministry is, frankly, immeasurable. The level of confidence of the people in the community about programs is evident in letter after letter I have received from people in my own community who have accessed HRDC programs to help them in job losses, to help family members in education. These are very positive programs.

One of the areas the Alliance would consider to be a non-priority would be something like ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That agency sees that Atlantic Canada has opportunities for investment for young entrepreneurs to grow businesses and to create jobs. The Alliance would simply eliminate that. At the same time it would wipe out HRDC programs. It would eliminate FedNor, I am sure, or at least drastically reduce it. The work that FedNor does in northern Ontario is extremely important and is value added that can be seen on the ground.

We get general platitudes that somehow we should reallocate financial resources from low and falling priorities. Yet all the opposition is doing is seizing on the concerns in the media, the fear that is being propagated by much of the action and many of the questions in this place, whether they are about immigration, denigrating refugees or attacking bureaucrats. That is all we hear instead of the opposition actually being constructive and saying that it is going to support the government's efforts in the area of fighting terrorism.

Will we get credit in the follow up to the budget next Monday for money that has already been committed? We have committed $280 million to our fighting terrorists campaign, to $250 million that has been put into the system, to $47 million that has gone to CSIS and to our security personnel to try to boost them, the government having recognized there was a problem that led up to September 11 which was primarily south of the border but that we should not be blind to the fact that we indeed could be subject to similar kinds of attacks.

I think our government has reacted responsibly and calmly. We put forward the budgetary measures needed to give our people the kind of support they need, but what do we hear? We hear the Leader of the Opposition standing up and demanding that our troops be sent to war. There is a cost to that, of course, but it does not matter to the opposition that the United States and Great Britain said they will withhold their troops from the ground war until they get more secure knowledge and there is in fact an opportunity to do some peacekeeping.

No, they would just send them off. They are there. They have their boots on and they are all laced up, so send them off to war. Whose children do they think they are sending into harm's way? I think Canadians are very concerned about that kind of knee-jerk reaction, just as the motion suggests, that we should “reverse the unbudgeted spending”. Imagine if we did not have the flexibility in the unbudgeted spending areas within the control of the government following September 11. What would have been our option?

I think our only option would have been to spend it anyway and start running a deficit and if there is something that I do not believe any member around here can criticize it is the financial record of the finance minister. It is a fact that in 1993 when the government was first elected it was faced with the mountainous problem of a $42 billion deficit overdraft, with spending more than we were bringing in. The finance minister, the Prime Minister and the government have eliminated that and have started to run surpluses. As a result, we are in a position to respond when there is a crisis such as that of September 11 and we were able to do so.

The opposition once again chose to put forward a motion that it knows is not based on reality. First, opposition members know that the budget, given that this is Tuesday afternoon, in all likelihood has been put to bed and has gone to the printer, I would think, if we are getting it next week.

The opposition is picking out areas where it knows it will have little impact so that next Monday opposition members can stand and say the government did not listen to them, that they had asked to spend money here and there and to change the policy on unallocated moneys within the budget process and it was not done. It is a little bit of a mug's game. The reality is that the responsibility of the government is to say to Canadians that we are doing the things that need to be done to provide safety and security for them and their families and that at the same we will not run into the deficit financing that put such a great burden on previous governments. It is the only responsible way to go.

What would have been interesting with an opposition day opportunity like today would have been if the opposition had wanted to talk about the successful signing of an agreement yesterday between the two nations of Canada and the United States to try to improve the situation at our borders. Would it not have been interesting to hear stories being discussed in this place to inform Canadians about the IBET system, where we are co-operating on enforcement at our borders, about the fact that we are streamlining our visas, about the fact that we are signing a safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States? Would that not have been a constructive debate and a terrific opportunity for all of us in this place to inform Canadians about some of the successes?

It is very interesting to me that it took the attorney general from the United States to make the statement that Canada's borders are indeed not porous for us to get a headline in the media stating that. When we say it, it tends to get ignored. Now the reality is out and these are the issues that I think Canadians want to hear us talk about.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Parkdale--High Park.

It is always quite interesting to hear members take selective issues and put their own twist on them. There was no mention about Ireland's success with the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in that part of the world by the EU. If we were to talk to people over there they would tell us that the capitalization of Ireland, the geography and the money invested by the European Union is clearly what has put Ireland in the position it is in today with regard to its quality of living. Having said that, I do not think we should denigrate Ireland's success. While speaking about quality of living though it would be nice if Ireland could also do something about the peace process.

I also find it quite interesting that the party putting forward today's opposition day motion lives by the credo that if it is in the press, it must be true, that if something is repeated often enough, people will believe it, and that the best way to draw attention to oneself is to create fear among the population of the country. We have seen classic examples recently in that party's call for more money to be spent on safety and security, the military and all kinds of issues in the opposition motion today.

For many years the Alliance has been saying that we need to actually cut expenditures. In fact it was part of its platform some five or six years ago, convenient memories today I suppose. That we should cut defence spending was actually a position of the Reform Party, the predecessor to the Canadian Alliance. Now things have changed. Members stand up in question period and say we should spend, spend, spend. Where do they get their figures?

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would not try to pretend that this is a panacea that is going to solve every problem.

In fact there was a young lady named Jessica who was the master of ceremonies at the recent new office opening of Community Living in Mississauga. She has had some difficulties in obtaining employment.

The point is there are many other examples and I could share many more. It is unfortunate if one or two of them did not work out but that does not mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I certainly would not single out one company such as Blockbuster over another.

The program I am talking about is an employment resource centre which operates through the auspices and offices of Community Living in my community of Mississauga. I am assuming once again that most members would have a branch of Community Living within their communities or nearby. I would encourage them to meet with their Community Living volunteers and staff to see if they can find ways to help increase employment of these young people in their communities.

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question because I do have another example from the same organization.

A young woman named Kim came to the employment resource centre requesting assistance to find a job. Community Living worked with her and Swiss Chalet and Harvey's, and found a job. This is a young person with a handicap who did not have an opportunity for a job before. Kim's manager said that she is the best, that they would be lost without her, that she is definitely an integral part of the kitchen's functioning. This is a wonderful success story.

The link I am trying to make is that it is the philosophical direction given not just by this government but by other governments and corporations to recognize the need to give people like Kim and many others an opportunity to work and to level the playing field. That is exactly what it is all about.

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Some do. Some neanderthals might still think along those lines, but the fact is, that law has saved lives. There is absolutely indisputable evidence that in fact it has saved lives.

We should think about the work on drinking and driving that is done within communities by local police forces and governments. My three sons are in their late twenties; tomorrow the oldest turns 31 and I would like to wish him a happy birthday. They would no more drink and drive than fly to the moon. It is just not acceptable. It was government that led the program to educate and convince our young people and indeed all community minded people that they should not drink and drive, that they should act responsibly. Even the LCBO and Brewers Retail in Ontario have bought into that philosophy, buying ads and taking time to convince people of that.

Think about government anti-smoking initiatives. It impacts on our health budget and it is the government that is doing good. Think about Participaction, a wonderful success story in the country, getting people up off the couch. Again it impacts on the quality and availability of our health care programs and it saves money.

Traditionally if one were a laissez-faire type of politician or had that kind of attitude, one would say “I am not going to bother with that. If people want to get up off the couch and exercise, that is their choice; we have no responsibility to encourage it”. Yet those kinds of programs have actual results. They could be financial results or health care related, safety related or community related results. It makes perfect sense. It is the responsibility of a forward thinking, modern government to show leadership in these areas. The same thing is true with employment equity.

Pay equity is another example. Some members opposite would say that there is no way a government should be involved in ensuring that women receive equal pay for work of equal value to men, to let the marketplace determine that, that we have no business in that. I recognize that a constituency out there actually supports that view but when the member opposite says that we are not in touch, exactly the opposite is the case. That member has no clue that the vast majority of people believe in and support these kinds of programs and government initiatives.

Employment equity is the same thing. Let me share some examples. First, this legislation exempts small businesses of under 100 employees. We are talking about federal government regulated industries of 100 employees or more. From all of our research, the facts show that many companies in other areas, provincially regulated or strictly in the private sector, of under 100 employees actually voluntarily employ an employment equity program. As with the other examples that I have shared of Participaction, seatbelts, or drinking and driving, the employment equity concept has created an awareness within the business sector that this is a good thing. There would be people who, without this kind of leadership from the government, would never have had an opportunity to work at a paid job. I want to share some of those examples.

There is a wonderful organization in most of our communities, certainly in mine, called Community Living. Community Living Mississauga deals with young people with severe handicaps, who are perhaps developmentally challenged or whatever their particular problem may be. It is a very successful community organization.

We just launched with it a new fundraising effort called Mississauga On Board which is a board game. We are not allowed to say it is like Monopoly because Monopoly has a monopoly on the Monopoly game but that is what it is. The cost is $40. Every community could have these. There could be Calgary On Board, Vancouver On Board. It is used to raise money. Local businesses buy spots on the game board as a way of promoting their businesses or interests. That is one of the ideas that Community Living is working with.

How does all of this relate to employment equity? Let me share some of the companies that work with Community Living on an employment program which ensures that the young people who otherwise would never dream or have a hope of getting a paid job become very productive members of the community and work for those companies. A partial list of these companies includes: Loblaws, Tim Hortons, HMV, and the city of Mississauga.

Municipalities have led the way right across the country in areas of employment equity. They recognize that there are people in their communities who should not be excluded and should be given every opportunity to show their capabilities regardless of their colour, origin or gender.

My city has done tremendous yeoman leadership in this area as have many municipalities in Ontario and across the country. Allseating, Swiss Chalet and Harvey's are other companies. I will share a story of one of the young people that has been hired. Another company is Blockbuster Video.

These local community based companies deal directly with the public. They hire young people from Community Living and give them an opportunity to develop pride, a sense of their own worth and make a contribution. There are wonderful testimonials. I maintain that much of this would not occur were it not for governments of all stripes in every area of the country being champions of issues like employment equity. That is why it is so disconcerting to hear people trash the concept, whether it is through the back door, as I said, by beating up on bureaucrats, or whether it is through being blunt, up front and at least being honest about their feelings.

Longos, a very successful grocery chain in our community, Aramark, Atlas Air Conditioning, Courtesy Clerk, and the list goes on, are just some of the companies that have entered into this kind of a program.

I will share an article with the House. I would suggest that this is a direct result of employment equity mentality:

Blockbuster Video has created a very supportive environment for people who have an intellectual disability. The Employment Resource Centre has been working with them for many years through paid employment and volunteer opportunities through the Summer Work Experience Program. Blockbuster Video has proven, over the years, to be an equal opportunity employer.

That is what we are talking about here, creating equal opportunities, a level playing field. It is giving people who otherwise would not have that assistance a chance to have a job and a meaningful opportunity to work. The article also states:

Jenny Morris has been working at Blockbuster Video since March 2001. At Blockbuster she has a variety of jobs that she is responsible for, including customer service, returning videos to the shelves, changing any video box inserts, and helping set up when the new releases come in.

In September this young lady, hired by Blockbuster through the program with Community Living, was named employee of the month by the company, a very honourable award. Everyone at the employment resource centre, her friends and her family are very proud of her.

Did this happen solely because someone dictated it? No, it did not at all. In fact, in the case we are talking about, Blockbuster is exempt. It would not be required to file the requisite reports on employment equity and to follow through. Blockbuster is not impacted by this, but it sees the leadership. It sees the opportunity. We can see it every day.

There are some interesting examples of people who have been successful in their careers. It was not too many years ago when I would suggest that it was quite astounding for a woman to become a CEO of a major corporation. People were quite surprised. Yet think about some of the success stories: Maureen Kempston Darkes at General Motors; Bobbie Gaunt at Ford; and the one I am particularly keen about as members of my family work for this corporation is Annette Verschuren, the CEO of Home Depot. They are great examples of women who have succeeded in climbing the corporate ladder.

Do we think it was easy for them to become CEOs in charge of such massive corporations? Do we not think that there were certain prejudices and difficulties along the way? Maybe they had to be subjected to a test or a bar that was a little higher than their counterparts who happened to be males and perhaps white males. Although they are not the types to do this, they could probably tell us stories to prove the point that this situation, this attitudinal shift which has taken place in the business community is as a result of debates and discussions like this one, where people talked about whether or not we need to actually legislate this kind of thing.

My House leader wants to move on in the debate so I am going to wrap this up. It is vitally important that we recognize this. It is a given that some members being in opposition have an obligation to oppose the government. That is fine; I have no difficulty with that. I have been in opposition myself in the past.

Those members should pause and take a deep breath. They should recognize that the purpose of employment equity legislation is to ensure that certain categories of people within our communities are given every opportunity to participate, to grow, to build careers, to have job opportunities, to have some dignity and a chance for a great life experience. It is important and I wish members opposite would agree.

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on this issue I think it is perhaps important that certain things that have been said be pointed out and not just left to stand. There is a certain propensity by members to not really say what they mean.

I was interested in the speech by the member for Calgary West. I wonder, actually, if his colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona would agree. He might be just a little bit uncomfortable, twitching a little bit, sitting and listening to that member, the same member, by the way, who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and wore a “Free Tibet” T-shirt to a reception hosted by the Chinese embassy, a questionable judgment.

On this issue what I heard was bashing of bureaucrats. It is easy to do. Someone can stand up and say that we should not be interfering in the workplace, that there is no place for government to set regulations, that we should not be telling people how they do their hiring and then all these bureaucrats come in. That is the description I heard from that member.

That is really code language for members saying that they do not believe this or any government should try to level the playing field for people who are perhaps disadvantaged traditionally in the workplace, people who are from visible minorities, handicapped, aboriginals or, frankly, women. That is the code that is used by saying that it is the bureaucrats' fault. People sit out there saying “Yes, those darned bureaucrats. They should just leave us alone”.

I think it is important to point out that there is this kind of doublespeak from time to time from certain members opposite. Given my history in this place of being somewhat harsh on certain members opposite, I admit that there are members who are equally uncomfortable with the kind of viewpoint or thought process that says “let the strong survive”. That is what it is: let the strong survive. In reality there is real justification and a legitimate role for a thoughtful and compassionate government to play in trying to establish certain standards, in trying to encourage people to do certain things that perhaps heretofore they had not done. I think that is totally realistic.

Members should think about some of the successful programs in recent days or years that if it were not for leadership shown by some level of government we would not have. When seatbelts became mandatory people used to say “Oh, it's terrible. You're forcing us to do something. Leave us alone and let us make our own choices”.

[Ron Lenyk, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my constituent Mr. Ron Lenyk on becoming this year's recipient of the Dean S. Lesher Award.

Ron's achievements during his 30 years in the newspaper industry include the introduction of colour photographs throughout his newspaper, a sophisticated neighbourhood distribution system and the introduction of community specific editorial coverage.

As well, under Ron's leadership the Mississauga News became the first newspaper in the world to implement a full desktop pagination system of production.

Ron's achievements in the city of Mississauga in community projects such as the Christmas bureau fund, community living, the millennium committee and the sports celebrities dinner are also to be commended.

On behalf of the citizens of Mississauga West I congratulate Ron Lenyk and thank him for his dedicated service to the newspaper industry and to his community.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote the minister from when she appeared before the committee. She said:

When dealing with groups that are willing to commit suicidal acts of mass destruction against innocent civilians, it is necessary to consider whether existing legislative tools are adequate to the challenge.

Our own Prime Minister said in the House:

It has become clear that the scope of the threat that terror poses to our way of life has no parallel. We, in North America, have been extraordinarily fortunate to live in peace, untouched by attack. That has changed.

I will quote a constituent of mine, who said:

If I have to give up a little bit of freedom to ensure the safety of my children, my family, my community and my country, then so be it.

The Canadian people have clearly sent a message. They understand, unlike some of my friends opposite, that we cannot fight terrorism with a group hug. We need to be tough. We need to put in place laws that are consistent with those of our allies in the United States and the United Kingdom. We need to pass the bill now so that Canada can be safe and secure.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I understand I have one minute in which to lay out my case. I just want to note for the record that I have been waiting to speak on this all day, yet someone else who was not on the Speaker's list was given the time that I would otherwise have enjoyed.

Let me try to do this in one minute and quote the minister, if I may.

[Health, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ontario's outgoing premier once again misled Ontarians by blaming the federal government for his own policies, but he left out a few important facts.

Last night the Prime Minister reminded him of what has actually happened. Last fall Premier Harris agreed to a health accord providing provinces with an additional $21 billion in federal health funding over five years.

Moreover, Premier Harris seems to have forgotten the facts in his own provincial budget. It clearly states that of the $1.2 billion in new health care spending, $1.1 billion or 92% comes from the federal government.

It appears that Mr. Harris is blaming the federal government for his own decision to cut taxes at the expense of medicare, but the Prime Minister made it very clear last night by saying “Do not fool around with public medicare. The people of Ontario will not stand for it and this Liberal government will not stand for it”.