Steve Mahoney

[International Co-Operation, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this year the cities of Mississauga and Kariya, Japan, celebrate the 20th anniversary of their twinning.

In March, a 24 member delegation from Mississauga, including Mayor Hazel McCallion and four city councillors, travelled to Kariya for a week long visit. Thousands of Japanese residents joined the delegation to celebrate the official opening of a four hectare park located in central Kariya and called Mississauga Park.

This event also marked the 50th anniversary of Kariya and kicked off a summer long initiative called Think Canada 2001. An initiative of the Canadian government and Japan, Think Canada 2001 is designed to promote recognition and understanding of Canadian culture, technology and business opportunities through seven months and some 200 events and activities.

I congratulate my city of Mississauga and the city of Kariya, Japan, on 20 economically and culturally prosperous years.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member earlier expressed an odd concern for a member of the Alliance Party, a concern one would sooner expect to hear from the NDP. He asked about labour standards and how they might be applied.

How could anyone in this place suggest that we impose our labour standards unilaterally or even bilaterally on countries within the free trade zone of the Americas? How can we ensure that labour standards regarding health and safety, minimum wage, procurement, fair wage and other issues are brought to bear in the countries with which we are negotiating if we do not negotiate with them?

We cannot have too many cooks in the kitchen or we will spoil the broth. We all know that. There is a job to be done. The negotiating team has work to do. The leaders of the countries have started the ball rolling with the meetings in Quebec.

Yes, we should work toward standardized labour protection in these countries. However, any member here who has travelled through the Americas knows that the labour conditions in many of the countries, notwithstanding the democracy clause that was passed, are atrocious and unacceptable.

We must work on a continual basis with these countries to show them the benefits of having a high quality, highly paid and highly skilled labour force. We can achieve this through negotiation and education. The FTAA is just one of many tools that can ensure prosperity is spread throughout the Americas.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister who has shown tremendous leadership in taking Canada down an inevitable path that we must seriously explore.

Imagine our country having any kind of serious negotiations with 33 other countries and not having some form of protest. I cannot imagine it. It is what makes Canada the most democratic and freest country in the world.

There was much noise made by people who were opposed to free trade about the security fence that was put up around the perimeter. Imagine the scenario if that particular defensive action was not undertaken by our government.

I recall when some students in Vancouver, who broke through at the APEC conference, were pepper sprayed. That led to a multimillion dollar inquiry into how the RCMP behaved and acted. There were all kinds of legal fees, allegations, counterallegations and charges. It was because some students had broken through a fence, perhaps not the same kind of fence as in Quebec City, in a violent way to try to force their views on the security people. It was not tolerated and the actions led to an inquiry.

What would have happened in Quebec City? We know that some people were arrested because they were carrying explosive devices and potential means of destruction into the country. Those weapons were confiscated. We saw it on television. What would have happened if there was not the level of security and those people had come through and somehow managed to detonate an explosive device and perhaps seriously injure, maim or even kill some of the participants?

Every member opposite in the House would be on their feet screaming indignation, calling for the government to resign, calling for the people involved in security, the solicitor general and others to resign their seat because they were unable to provide the necessary security for an international meeting to take place.

Canadians would agree that the images we saw were not what we expect to see in a Canadian city at any given time. The reality is that we live in a world that is full of people who would purport to put their views forward using means that are unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.

I wish to speak about that vast majority in terms of the demonstrators. Most of the demonstrators were there to peacefully put their viewpoints across. They held a very successful people's summit. I take some exception with that, but that is all right. I do not have a problem with that.

They put their counterviews on the table and they discussed them. They passed resolutions and developed strategies. There were people from the labour movement who were concerned about labour standards. There were people from the civil society who were concerned about sovereignty, culture and protection of our natural resources. The government does not have a problem with any of those issues being put forward.

I would argue that the protesters drove the agenda with some success. I am not convinced that six months ago when the planning began for this conference the first and most significant clause to come out of Quebec City would have been the democracy clause. The engagement of the public has led the leaders of all those countries to decide that a common bond, a common principle of any agreement on free trade must include an adherence to the democratic principles that Canadians hold so dear.

What this means is elections. That is why Cuba was not invited or allowed to participate. Anyone who has been to Cuba would realize that the people, on the surface, seem to have everything that they need. They seem to have their health care and their education provided for. They seem to have certain basic things like food and shelter. However, in Cuba they do not have the most fundamental basic human right, that is the right to dissent, the right to demonstrate, the right to hold a differing opinion, and the right to express that opinion. It is clear that in terms of this agreement, with the democracy clause, that they simply cannot be part of that.

One of the issues that will be looked at is the situation in Haiti. There will be a group travelling to Port-au-Prince to meet with government officials to ensure that true democracy and not some kind of military dominance is in place in Haiti.

The countries that are signatories to this agreement, and I do not know of any other agreement where this kind of a clause has been put in place, will have the right to expel a particular country from membership and disallow it from taking part in the particular benefits of free trade if in fact it violates the democracy clause. What we see could only occur in Canada. We need to deal with the possibilities if we can.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas claims he was shot by a rubber bullet, although he is not sure, but he and the leader of the NDP want to force an inquiry. These are mere tactics in an attempt to derail and stop the progress of negotiating a free trade agreement.

Who would benefit if we were to expand our markets? This country has done remarkably well. Our next census will show our population to be somewhere around 31 million people. If we compare that to our neighbour to the south, which has 10 times our population and the clout and economic ability to trade, it is quite remarkable that our growth rate is higher than the United States, 2.4% versus 1.7%. Our inflation rate is lower, our unemployment rate is comparable and our economy is very strong on its own.

Could we do that if we were to shrink wrap our borders and shrink wrap this country? I do not think we could. However, should we be looking at other markets? Do we want to tie ourselves to the will of the United States when the economy does take a downturn or do we want to have alternatives?

We want to ensure that our sovereignty is protected. I have no doubt about that. Every member in this place would agree with that. We want to ensure that our natural resources and renewable resources are protected and, where feasible, are marketed where opportunities arise.

The intent of the motion put on the floor by the Bloc is to ensure that there is transparency in the negotiations. Many of the meetings were on television. The media had complete access and the people's summit had terrific input into the process that went on. The transparency is there.

The fact that we are on our feet today is another example of how parliament can play a role in shaping the future. We should work with the minister and the government to ensure that we negotiate a free trade agreement of the Americas that will not only benefit Canada but benefit many of the poorer countries that could use assistance in terms of science and technology, our exports, our expertise and our capabilities, and that could perhaps use some help in the area of democratization.

We are on the edge of a tremendous opportunity to expand the horizons of this country. Instead of dwelling on the negative, the demonstrators and the rock throwers, we should acknowledge the fact that there is healthy dissent. It is truly Canadian and the Canadian way to negotiate. This is an opportunity we should seize. We should move forward and develop an agreement with the Americas that makes sense for the prosperity of this entire hemisphere.

I am confident that with the leadership of the minister and the Prime Minister, and the work of all the people involved, we will indeed have an agreement for which our children will say well done.

[House Of Commons, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the debate in this place has been acrimonious at best, but it hit an all time low on Tuesday when a member tried to draw a comparison between our Prime Minister and the butcher of the Balkans, Slobodan Milosevic.

That member may think that is just insulting Liberals, but in fact it is insulting to all Canadians who have moved to Canada from the former Yugoslavia and to Canadians in general.

The member should withdraw the words and apologize. The member has shown a total lack of morals, sensitivity and understanding in a blind zest to destroy our Prime Minister's reputation.

Canadians will not forget this repugnant example of a member who debases her party, herself and this place by making these scurrilous comments. The member—

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will give the hon. gentleman at least credit for dealing with the issues, unlike much of the debate I have heard opposite.

There is a saying that I have heard in business and in legal circles, and that is that the contract is only as good as the two people who enter into it. I think people accept that as a fact. The member can laugh but it is the factual way of doing business right across this country. Many times it is done, I might add, on a handshake. However, I am not sure members opposite would understand that level of trust.

This contract was clearly signed by both people. They were seen to be people of faith. I think the Prime Minister would have good reason to trust Mr. Prince and there is no question that Mr. Prince would have good reason to trust the Prime Minister.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my record in municipal government is quite open to the public. I want to share something that is relevant to the hon. gentleman's question. It is from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Regarding what one should not do, it says:

The offer of any money or other advantage to any Member of the House, for the promoting of any manner whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion of the Constitution.

I would point out to the hon. member that there is someone in this place who in my view has contravened this section. It is the leader of the fifth party. He accepted money from his party, money that was raised by public or private contributions to the party, and accepted it as an extra emolument to his salary.

Do we want another inquiry? Why do we not look into that conflict of interest and find out just exactly where the member is getting his money from, how much he is getting, who is contributing and how he can justify taking extra money to perform his duties in this place?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga South.

I thought I had seen the lowest of the low in this place until the speech that I just heard and witnessed. I hope the constituents in Nose Hill were watching television and listening to the kind of poisonous rhetoric that we just heard from that member opposite.

Not only does she lower the level of debate by attempting to compare someone accused of crimes against humanity, of fraud, of theft and who may be tried in The Hague by an international court for the most violent kind of crimes that anyone could experience, she has tried to compare a right hon. member of this place to that person by using terminology such as “the answers have to square with the facts”.

She says that truth telling is the glue that keeps our society together, that we should not mislead or make false statements. How many ways does one person in this place call another one a liar? That is what I heard, but I do not see anyone over there with the courage to stand and say it. Instead the opposition hides behind phraseology, trickery and debate.

The one thing I can say is that unlike many of my colleagues in this place I am not a lawyer. As a result it gives me a unique perspective in looking through all the nonsense that is being hurled around here that is nothing more than legal bafflegab.

The facts are clear. The opposition demanded that the ethics counsellor look into the matter after having accused the Prime Minister of having a conflict of interest. That is what it asked for, and he did it. The opposition did not like the answer, so the only weapon it had left was to attack the integrity of the ethics counsellor, a man whose integrity is beyond reproach. That is all it could do. It does not like the answer, so it tries to shoot the messenger.

The leader of the fifth party, a man who is the only other person in this place to share the title right honourable, requested that the RCMP investigate and look into criminal activity. When the RCMP replies that there is no criminal activity, what does he do? He cloaks himself around the guise of being a bit holier than thou by suggesting that he was not saying the Prime Minister was dishonest, but on the other hand he did not believe the Prime Minister was telling the truth.

Members opposite say that the Prime Minister is not a liar but on the other hand truth has to win out. They say truth will win out, but he is not lying. What kinds of games are these?

Canadians can see through this nonsense. This is nothing more than a witch hunt like no other I have ever witnessed in my 23 years in public office. It is an attempt by the opposition to destroy one man. Why? It is because they cannot win any other way. They have tried by walking through the front door of parliament, but the closest they get is a sniff of sitting across in the opposition benches.

They cannot get in the front door through the electoral process, so they find another strategy. They tear down the institution. They tell Canadians that parliament is dysfunctional and that nothing works. They prove it by harassing and continually bringing forward motions that make this place extremely difficult to work in. They destroy themselves and then they become reborn. It is an amazing strategy to behold. How does one tear down the institute of parliament? It is done by attacking the top member of the institution.

Members wanted to see the bill of sale. Members on all sides said that if the bill of sale were shown it would solve this in a heartbeat. Those are not our words. They said that this could be solved in a heartbeat. The Prime Minister talked to the ethics counsellor and decided to release the documents. He released not only the bill of sale but 10 supporting documents that go with the bill of sale that explain every question members opposite have asked. Was that acceptable? No.

Now it is being denigrated as being written on a napkin at a kool-aid stand. Canadians see through that. It is a handwritten document. That is not unusual. I have entered into agreements myself that have been handwritten on stationery and signed. It is the intent that matters, and members know that. The Prime Minister sold the shares in 1993. What could be more clear?

One member opposite said that the Prime Minister voluntarily put his shares into a blind trust. That is absolutely not the truth. It is a fallacious statement that is not based on the historical record. He did not have shares to put into a blind trust. They did not exist in his possession. He was owed money and it is ironic that at the end of the day the man lost money. It has to be one of the worst business deals he has ever done. He lost something in the neighbourhood of $50,000 on the sale of those shares. Why did Mr. Prince not pay him? How would we know? How would he know?

The Prime Minister turned the matter, the collection of a debt and that is all it was, over to his trustee. The trustee worked co-operatively with the commissioner to try to collect the moneys that were properly and duly owed to the Prime Minister and his family. Should he be penalized because he is the Prime Minister or a member of parliament? Should he say to forget the debt, that he would wash his hands of it, and that he would not try to collect it because he is in public office? Should he not be able to do his job as a member of parliament on behalf of his constituents.

No one talks about the fact that the first loan application for the hotel was for $2 million. That was turned down by the bank. How much did they actually get when they got the loan approved? After some assistance from their MP, how much did they actually get? It was $615,000, a far cry from $2 million.

Is it unusual for a loan to be turned down and for the applicant to be told to go back to redo the business plan, to set out the issues in priority and to return with an alternative proposal for a lesser amount? It is about as normal as any other kind of business transaction that I can imagine. Loans were received from the caisse populaire. Is there something wrong with that?

I do not understand why people want to destroy businesses in the Prime Minister's riding. I understand the political motivation for trying to destroy him. It is the only way that they can take over this place. The damage that is being done to innocent people at the ground level who are not in the blood sport called politics, who do not have an axe to grind in any of this, is most unfortunate.

If the opposition wants an inquiry, I have one. The Leader of the Opposition when he was a member in Alberta falsely made an accusation against a local lawyer. He made derogatory remarks for which he was sued and for which he subsequently settled upon fear of being found guilty. He settled and the taxpayers were left with a bill of almost $800,000. Of that, $400,000 went to the law firm that defended the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not somewhat puzzling when it came out that there was an election contribution of $70,000 by that same law firm to the Canadian Alliance?

Upon revealing the information that the $70,000 contribution had been made to the Canadian Alliance, the same law firm recanted. It said that it was not the firm, that it was one of its partners. It got the receipt back and asked that another receipt be issued in the name of an individual. It was one person, one man, one lawyer who worked as a partner in the same law firm that represented the Leader of the Opposition in a defamation law suit, who donated $70,000. Members should think about that. That man needs help: $70,000 as a donation to one political party.

I find it an astounding coincidence that the $70,000 donation to one political party is the same amount that was made by the legal firm. It is the same amount for which the law firm requested that the receipt be withdrawn and a new one issued to the individual. Is there something wrong with that? Maybe we need an inquiry.

In closing, I want to say and reiterate that this is clearly one of the most despicable attempts by an opposition, granted a united opposition, that has only one goal, and that is to destroy the Prime Minister of the country.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not out of desperation. This is out of an absolute sense of shame that the member would somehow try to link this place or our Prime Minister to Milosevic who has been arrested and will be charged with crimes against humanity.

There is no relevance whatsoever to using that as a comparative. I ask the member to withdraw those remarks and to apologize to the House and to Canadians for trying to make such a despicable—

[Immigration, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the citizenship and immigration committee is hearing witnesses on Bill C-11 to help rewrite the Immigration Act for the first time in 25 years. It deals with issues such as visitor visas, landed immigrant status, permanent residency and refugee determination.

We want to hear from as many Canadians as possible. Our plan was to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and London, Ontario to hear people's concerns. Schedules were laid out, but the Canadian Alliance says it will not go. Instead we will be relegated to hearing people who can get to Ottawa and to teleconferencing.

The Canadian Alliance now wants to hijack committees the same way it has hijacked parliament. Canadians are fed up with these tactics. Instead of listening to concerns from across the country, the Canadian Alliance would rather throw mud and destroy parliament. It is doing a disservice to the country.

[Health, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians see the pictures on the evening news of huge piles of burning animal corpses in the United Kingdom and of thousands of British sheep being dumped in a huge pit for burial, the opposition in this place have asked one question on this issue since it arose, so I guess we have to do their job for them.

While other countries strive to control the spread of foot and mouth disease, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what we are doing to stop this scourge from entering Canada?