Steve Mahoney

[Petitions, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition has about 446 names. It calls upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation to give tougher penalties for animal abusers.

[Petitions, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first has 37 names appealing to the Parliament of Canada to volunteer to form part of Canada's SOS rescue team to go to China, and to provide protection for this rescue team, to stop the torture and killing of Falun Gong practitioners and to free all said practitioners as well.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I gave the money to charity instead because I would be darned if I gave it back to Mike Harris so he could squander it on some other foolish project that might get him re-elected. Using taxpayer money to win votes is the most disgusting and despicable play of politics. Harris is a master at it. Thank God he is retiring so we will not have to put up with that kind of shenanigans again in this province.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the idea of whether or not we are able to re-route some traffic across our border bears looking into.

I know for a fact that there is currently a proposal from the private sector to buy the currently closed rail bridge that goes across at Niagara Falls. The reason they want to buy that is to change it from rail to a road bridge and use it exclusively for trucks.

The member should believe me when I say that I know what House I am in and of the issues of which I speak.

The province of Ontario has also proposed building a new highway that would be partly alongside the Niagara escarpment and would be used primarily for trucks. I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Those are the kinds of proposals in my view for which the provincial government should be knocking on our door to say that it needs our help to do those things.

We need the federal-provincial agreement to be able to put together some new routes for our commercial goods so that we can then free up the opportunity for other flows of traffic like tourists and residents of both Canada and the United States.

I would be happy to talk to the Minister of Finance. The member should know that we have already have been talking to the Minister of Transport about many of these ideas.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the member for York West, given her vast experience at the municipal level and a little experience that I have had at that end, how she sees the relationship unfolding between the various levels of government as we all wrestle with our budgets, not just post-September 11 but even before that, where we all try to figure out what the role of government is as we look to providing services to our various constituencies.

I suspect the member might have told me that clearly there is a role where the federal government, on a large scale basis, is responsible for setting and putting in place national guidelines and policies and for transferring money directly to the provinces that in turn are responsible to deliver certain services, such as health care and education, and in turn they would transfer money down to the municipal level which would also be responsible for delivering certain services to their constituents.

What is really happening, in my view of the overall economic situation in government, is that certain governments, because of either political dogma or certain promises that have perhaps been made, disguising it as a common sense revolution in Ontario, have changed the way that governments are forced to do business.

I recognize that in the province of Ontario the Mike Harris Conservative government was re-elected. It has had two majority governments. Obviously the people are voting for the Conservatives and we have to respect the democratic process.

However what they have done in that period is fundamentally changed the way governments are able to do business, particularly at the municipal level. They have downloaded the responsibility and taken away the money for so many programs. They have done it at the provincial level in Ontario and then, when the municipalities complain, they come to the realization that their only option is to go to the federal government.

Transit is a classic example. I spent eight years in the Ontario legislature. In those days and before, the province of Ontario assumed the responsibility to fund 75% of transit expenses at the municipal level. The other 25% came from the fare box or the tax base in a particular municipality.

If one had a municipality like mine in Mississauga, where the fare box would not generate enough revenue to cover that 25%, obviously one would come up with a shortfall. However when we analyze the nature of that community, one of the reasons that there is a shortfall in the fare box is the dominance and the predominance of the automobile going into industrial parks built all around Pearson international airport and in the west end of Mississauga, the area I represent. Those industrial and commercial areas generate substantial tax revenue. They also generate substantial automobile traffic and very little traffic for a transit system to survive on.

As a result of that, it seems reasonable to me that a portion of the industrial commercial tax base in a municipality like mine could in fact be used to make up the shortfall in the 25% of the transit. The municipality was responsible for 25%, the province for 75%. When the province bailed out, it got to the point, until just the last few weeks, where it was funding zero per cent of transit costs. That is a major download to a municipality.

On top of that, it was funding zero per cent not only for the Mississauga transits or the TTCs of this world, or the Ottawa transit system, it was funding zero per cent for the GO train system.

What does GO stand for? It stands for government of Ontario. This was a transit system, for goodness sakes, that was created by the province of Ontario as a fast rail commuter system to bring people into downtown Toronto and back home from the east and the west in the GTA. The province bailed out of that entirely. It is 100% gone so all the GTA municipalities had to get together. They were not only trying to make up a shortfall in terms of their local transit systems but they were responsible for funding 100% of the Ontario government's transit system.

What happens when this occurs? It has a ripple effect. The municipalities get together and say that they do not have anywhere to cut. There is no level of government below the municipalities that can be cut. What are they to do? They have to take it away from other services or increase taxes.

Increasing taxes is not a very popular move, particularly in the last eight to ten years. There has been tremendous effort and sacrifice made on the part of municipal governments to find ways to pare down their operations so that they can deliver the kinds of services they need to deliver. However, the reality is that when one drives anywhere in the city of Toronto almost a seamless rush hour exists from the east end to the west end where there is nothing but gridlock.

Not only is there nothing but gridlock, the gridlock is on roads that are in the worst shape that I can ever remember in my lifetime.

Highway 401 is a disgrace in the sense of the potholes, ruts and damage that large trucks have caused, in spite of the fact that the 407 was built by the province and then sold and privatized. It took that money but did it put that back into maintenance or highway construction? No, it did not.

The province made a choice. However those government members were re-elected with a majority. This is their choice and their right in this democracy to do what they have done. They decided to cut taxes, and that is fine. We have done the same thing but there is a difference. We cut taxes at the federal level by $100 billion, which comes into affect in this taxation year, after we had balanced the books. The province of Ontario did not do that. It actually sent out $200 of borrowed money in rebate cheques to everybody in the province.

Some people I know sent the money back telling the provincial government to use the money to fix the roads, to deal with the garbage problems in communities, to build affordable housing or to help a single mother on welfare. Instead, the government cut welfare costs and have driven people off social assistance, some who perhaps should not have been there but many are winding up homeless and desperate as a result of the policy.

I served with Mike Harris for eight years, five years on the same side of the Ontario legislature in opposition to Bob Rae. For five years Mike and I were on the same program. We pretty much agreed, not necessarily on everything but on a lot of things. I say to Mike that he had a choice. He should not cry now when all of a sudden, as a result of a terrible tragedy like September 11, we find ourselves in an economic crisis in the country, and particularly in this province. He should not try to say it is all Ottawa's fault. It does not hold water and it does not make sense.

We signed a health transfer accord with the province of Ontario that generated $1.2 billion in increased funds to the province for health care. How much do members think the province increased its health care budget? It increased it by $1.2 billion this year. I say good for the province. It used the money for health care the way it was intended. It is the first time I have seen it do that.

The province of Ontario cannot have it both ways. Mr. Harris has to realize he had his choice and he made his choice. He made his bed and, by God, he will lie in it.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say how much I empathize and sympathize with the people who have spoken in this place expressing concern over the possible job loss, particularly at this time of year, but at any time of year. They fear what may happen in their communities as a result of the closing of mills and the loss of business resulting from these punitive actions and movements by the United States government.

While I do have some northern Ontario roots, as my friend from Algoma mentioned, being from Sault Ste. Marie, I also represent a riding that is very reliant upon the lumber industry in a community like Mississauga. I cannot imagine the damage that would happen to the housing industry if we lost our mills or if we had to resort to importing wood from Mississippi or Tennessee, perhaps at exorbitant prices as was referred to earlier. This would have a rippling effect and could affect not only jobs and economies of places like Thunder Bay and other parts of northern Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, B.C., but it could have an effect throughout the country.

Canada controls something in the neighbourhood of 21% of the world market in lumber, so it is an important sector of the Canadian economy. It is important for my riding and for urban ridings equally, perhaps not as obvious at first blush, because of the impact it could have.

When the NAFTA agreement was entered into, I was not in this place but rather in another place at Queen's Park. I recall the debate wherein people used the phrase “It's like getting into bed with an elephant”. If that elephant rolls over or decides to do whatever, it is done and a person has no defence. The reality is that the elephant in this case has attempted to roll over onto the mouse in the past and the mouse has kicked back, challenged and won at the WTO.

It continues again. The elephant is a little twitchy, nervous and does not quite understand how this can happen. The most powerful nation with the biggest lobby groups in the world feels it should have its way on this particular issue.

I have thought about this and asked myself: What is the real issue? People I talked to in my community get confused with all the acronyms such as WTO and NAFTA and the words countervailing and duties to be paid. They hear all this and wonder what is going on.

In my view, this is much more than simply a trade dispute. This is potentially an attack the sovereignty of Canada. I have heard it said before, and I have often thought it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, that we can determine our own sovereignty and that no one can take it away from us.

Let us analyze what is happening.

Canada has a system of licensing out to corporations the harvesting rights on crown land so they can harvest the wood under a reforestation plan, or an under an environmental plan or working in with groups like MNR and local communities in Ontario to determine how much of the forest should be harvested. Let me call it stumpage. We have that all over the country. Stumpage is a public manner in which we manage our forest inventory.

The United States system is quite different. The lands are privately owned. Corporations go in and simply do what they want. There may be some environmental constrictions, remembering that they respond to the shareholder on the bottom line. They have to decide corporately how they will manage their particular inventory.

If times are tough maybe they step it up a bit. If times are good maybe they back off and move somewhere else. Do they pay attention to reforestation policies to the same degree as our provincial governments do? We all know that forestry comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is another issue. They want to tell us how we should interact as a federal government with our provincial partners and our industry partners. We should simply do it the way they do.

The Americans say that stumpage is an unfair subsidy because it is crown land and we do not charge enough for the licences that we give out. Yet there is so much more to it in terms of reforestation.

I want to share with the House a small example of the detail and the level to which our officials in the province of Ontario and elsewhere in the country actually manage their forests. My wife and I own a small cottage property in the Parry Sound area. We were told that a licence had been given out to a forestry company to come in right behind us and take out a number of trees. We called and found out that the ministry of natural resources had assigned the responsibility to a consulting firm to do a complete inventory and analysis of the site in question.

We met with those folks. The bottom line was very interesting. Two separate licences were given to the same company in the same general area on our lake. The nest of a red shouldered hawk was discovered on the crown land behind our property. Everything came to a grinding halt because of this red shouldered hawk.

The level of detail had an individual actually walking through the forest doing an inventory of the trees, marking the trees that could be removed under this licensing agreement and then discovering that there was a species at risk nesting in the area and calling the whole thing off. I was not afraid to have a bit of culling done in the forest behind our property, but I was quite impressed with the conservation attitude.

How does my story relate? It seems to me that the Americans would like to take away the opportunity for our officials to do that and that we should simply operate like they do. That is to go in, clear cut, do whatever and worry about reforestation later.

Why is this sovereignty? We have a right as Canadians and an obligation as members of parliament to ensure that it is our policies that are determining the future of the forest industry and, perhaps more important, the future and the conservation of the forest itself.

In addition to hockey what else identifies this country more than the forest, the forest industry, the jobs and all benefits that come from that?

We can stand and get excited about this debate. However we have to realize what is next. Is it bulk water? We all know the debate. Is it oil and gas? We all know what they want. We know the crunch in the United States.

It is impossible for anyone to publicly criticize the United States ever since September 11. God bless America. We are their family and friends. We will not be ridden roughshod because a certain lobby group or sector in that country decided that it does it the right way and that Canadians do not.

We will not be told how to manage the future resources of this great land. We will not be told by the Americans how to do business, no matter what sector it happens to be in.

[Health, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday Mike Harris, premier of Ontario, said that the federal government had not made health care one of its top priorities. In fact he also accused the Government of Canada of a funding shortfall.

What are the real facts on the Government of Canada's health care spending in the province of Ontario?

[Liberal Government, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker,

It was eight years ago today When Canadians had their say. After many tumultuous years Many were brought to tears.

There was $42 billion in debt From the Tories you say? You bet! So the choice was clear. Time for a change. Hear, hear!

So after eight years of prosperity, An opposition in anonymity, Canadians are truly proud As they say to the world out loud

Canada is the best, Clearly better than the rest. But in a typical Canadian way We leave it to others to say...

Eight years of Liberal success Hip hip hooray!

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as MPs we all know what goes on in our offices regarding immigration. I am sorry if the hon. member wants to insult me personally about my presentation, but I feel very passionately about the issue. I am the longest serving member of the citizenship and immigration committee.

We have people who apply for visitor visas and come to Canada. When that visa expires they disappear. Am I happy about that? No, I am not, but they are not criminals. Many of them are working in the housing industry and in the construction trades. They are also not necessarily refugees.

We have people in Canada and in the United States who are living here without the proper status. Yes, we should try to correct that and Bill C-11 goes a long way toward allowing us to do that. This is a bill that the hon. member's party spoke against in committee and voted against in the House.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I made note of a statement made by the previous speaker for the opposition. He said that most of the refugees who arrive in Canada and claim refugee status are not refugees. He is the opposition critic in the citizenship and immigration committee. That is so wrong that it is laughable. The approval rate by the refugee board is 57% of people who make claims. Members would be surprised to know that the approval rate in the United States is 54%.

I wish our society was a neat little box like the member opposite suggests. If people do not meet the standards of our comfortable little cozy world in Canada then we are automatically suspicious.

We do the security checks and the interviews. We find out who the people are, where they are from and what they are doing. If they pose a security risk or if there is any doubt that they may not show up for a hearing, they are detained. What more do these people want? Do they want a penal colony? That is not Canada.