Steve Mahoney

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that just before we had to leave the debate and go to question period and members' statements a point of order was raised by an opposition member questioning the relevance of my speech.

I do not want to spend the entire nine minutes reiterating what I said, but I was pointing out that some questions of ethics were coming from the other side. Notably there was one from the leader with regard to his lawsuit and the $800,000 bill that he left foisted upon the taxpayers of Alberta. Also there was the $50,000 payout to Jim Hart to free up a seat so that the hon. Leader of the Opposition could run, after that individual said Mr. Hart left voluntarily, voluntarily with his pockets bulging with money I might add.

I also question the fact that, contrary to the public statements two members made in the past castigating the pension plan, they decided to reinvest $89,000 for Edmonton North and $50,000 for Medicine Hat into the pension plan.

The relevance of all of that is quite clear to me and I think to taxpayers. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they will bring a new attitude to parliament somehow, that the pension is awful, and then buy back in and create a million dollar asset for themselves. They cannot say that they are prepared to deny an individual charged under the laws of this land his due right to defence in law and then duck the bill when it comes in as a result of a slander charge.

The point of the relevance here is that we do not need lectures from opposition members about ethics. They have shown no character, no moral fibre, no ability to stand behind the words they have uttered for pure crass political advantage on their part. They have misled the Canadian public by coming into the House holier than thou and saying parliament needs to appoint an ethics counsellor.

One cannot in parliamentary terms use words like hypocrisy, so I will not. However the things members opposite have said in public and with their own constituents border on questionable judgment.

Let me talk a little about the ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor has upon request appeared in the past before parliamentary committees. Is it reasonable to assume that is the method that would be used for any official to answer to parliament? Do we expect the ethics counsellor, or any other official, would be allowed to walk into the House and answer? I do not think so.

In the normal course of business we would expect any official appointed either by the Prime Minister or by the governor in council, with a job to do which relates to public business, would appear upon request before a parliamentary committee.

It is puzzling to me how opposition members can stand in their places, in spite of the litany of unethical activities that have occurred within their own ranks, and say that the ethics counsellor does not report to parliament. Of course he does.

The leader of the fifth party, the former prime minister, wrote a letter asking for action and investigation on certain subjects. He received a response.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister did not duck the issue. When accused of having done something wrong he asked the ethics counsellor to report immediately, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who asked that his court date regarding slander charges against him be conveniently deferred until after the election.

Our Prime Minister said to the ethics counsellor “Here are the allegations. Yes, I am in the middle of an election campaign. I want you to report now. I am not afraid of anything. I am not prepared to hide, duck and run like the Leader of the Opposition”.

The ethics counsellor wrote the letter which says that there was no conflict or wrongdoing. It puzzles me, although I guess it should not, how the opposition has interpreted what he said. The counsellor has examined the issue at least twice and reported as such. He has done so in a letter released publicly. Is that not accountable to the place?

To then turn it around is the game that is played. This is not about the ethics counsellor. Opposition members are still bitter about what happened in the election. They cannot believe it. They are still in shock. They think the Canadian people made a mistake.

I have been on both sides of electoral activity. I have won and lost in 11 election campaigns. I lost three and won the rest. I believe that in every one of those eleven campaigns the voters were right. When they make a decision that they do not want an individual around again that is their right. The voters are never wrong. I do not care if members like it. I do not care if they think it is unfair. The voters are always right. It is a clear message in a democracy. They have the authority and only they have the authority to make those decisions.

What happens? We come back here again. We have five parties in this place. We have 172 seats. We have a resounding majority. We have representatives from sea to sea to sea.

The Prime Minister is elected for the third successive majority government and what happens? Not even two weeks past the opening of parliament and the Prime Minister is attacked every day. They get into the gutter. They accuse. It is personal.

I have not heard questions about issues other than a few from the backbenches. The frontbenches of the opposition parties seem bent on personal assassination and destruction of one of the greatest parliamentarians the House has ever seen. Like him or not, the man's credentials are impeccable.

When they cannot deal with the issues and realize the people have shown confidence in the government, what can they do? The only thing left to do is to get personal. That is sad. It frankly shows a lack of depth, a lack of ethics and a lack of moral fortitude within the ranks of the opposition that is quite shameful.

Whenever I talk in the House I get an e-mail from someone in Vancouver who gets upset, bent out of shape and tells me what a terrible person I am because I say these things. Let us be clear. The games played in this place are for nothing more than political advantage. They have nothing to do with good governance. They have nothing to do with representing individual constituencies when we get into this kind of nonsense.

Members opposite know that full well. They have even said it. I could read quote after quote about the ethics counsellor from members opposite. Even today one member opposite stood in the House and said “I am not talking about the individual; he is an honourable person”. The opposition House leader at one point accused him of being a barking dog, which was most unfortunate. Then some of his colleagues stood and said it was not true and that they thought he was an honourable gentleman.

They are trying to portray the ethics counsellor as an appointee of the Prime Minister who only talks to the Prime Minister, even though he has appeared before a legislative committee and answered in a public letter all accusations and charges.

Those members should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of harping on personal attacks against the Prime Minister, why do they not look at the agenda and deal with things that Canadians care about like health care and education and EI reform? Let us deal with substantive issues that make Canada the greatest country in the world, and let us try to make it better.

I am sorry to be so fervent about it, but it is a disgraceful display by opposition members and a waste of a parliamentary day at great cost to the taxpayer. They have no business pointing the finger at this side of the House.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which one of the sarcastic remarks he wants me to withdraw, so it is difficult for me to respond to that. The problem I have is that I am only telling the truth so it means that I cannot withdraw comments that are based on fact.

Let me also tell members about comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the election. He informed the public that the seat he was running for had been voluntarily and cheerfully vacated by Mr. Jim Hart, who was the member of the day. He said that. It is in black and white. We all know he said it and the members opposite know he said it, only for us to find out at a later date that Mr. Hart was given $50,000 in return for vacating his seat.

I found it interesting that the member for Wild Rose was quoted as saying “Fifty thousand dollars? That is an awful lot of bucks”. He was pretty upset about that.

Those members who purport to tell us how we should behave in government paid off one of their members to open up a safe seat for their leader to run in. I think the Canadian people did judge. I found it interesting when I heard a member opposite, one who spoke earlier, say that we need to change this so the people of Canada could have confidence in the Prime Minister.

Our party has 172 seats in the country, with parliamentarians representing every province, every territory and every part of the country. I will admit we are not as strong in some parts of the country as we would like, but we clearly have a larger majority. I believe the Canadian people showed their confidence in the Prime Minister and in the government. More important, they showed that they were not prepared to entrust the Canadian Alliance or any other party with the responsibility of governing.

Let me also say that it is very difficult for us to accept lectures from a party when its deputy leader decides, after having railed against gold plated pensions in this place, to invest $89,000, magically turn that into a $1 million asset and then say that she needs to take care of her family. The hon. member should have thought of that before she came in here with the pigs, the buttons and the snorting that went on in the most disgusting display that most of us have ever seen in this place.

Now we find out today that a second member, the member for Medicine Hat, has invested $50,000 to buy back in. This is what he said in an interview from Ottawa: “I probably cannot square it. We will try to do our best to explain it”.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to him as the person who just finished speaking. Is that any better?

Never mind Jesse James or whatever that was. It is like Homer looking after Bart Simpson over there. We are seeing that on an ongoing basis.

I want to address the issue that the person who just finished speaking brought up. It is the issue of comments made during the election by one of my colleagues, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Is it not interesting to note that when comments are made outside of this place there is no legal protection for any member? If the party opposite was so incensed in its rather thin skinned approach to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was at the time a candidate for re-election for the Liberal Party, why did it not simply do something about it? The comment was not made under the protection of the House of Commons. That party has access and recourse to the legal system if its members feel they have been slandered in some way.

The comment that was made was based on the fact that over the years enough things have been said by people purporting to represent that party and its predecessor such that an image has been created within the broader public in Canada that it attracts people with some unusual, perhaps to be kind, fringe ideas.

I recall during the election campaign having a very fine gentleman representing the Alliance Party running against me in my riding of Mississauga West. He was a member of the Chinese community, in fact, the president of the Chinese Association of Mississauga. I remember how upset he was at an all candidates meeting about the comment that came from one Betty Granger, a candidate for that party, who talked about the Asian invasion.

Members can imagine how my opponent, being of Asian extraction, reacted and how he felt in regard to that kind of insensitive comment. That is the problem and that is what the minister, the candidate at the time in Thornhill, was referring to. So if those members opposite want to say that she did not have a right to make those comments, I beg to differ, and they have a right to take action.

Let me share another example of what is, in my view, unethical behaviour, a statement that I am quite prepared to make either in this place or outside this place. I am referring to the current Leader of the Opposition who, when a member of the Alberta legislature, wrote a letter—he did not say this in the Alberta legislature—to the editor slandering a lawyer who was representing a person who had been charged, not yet convicted, with pedophilia.

The implication in the letter written by the Leader of the Opposition, the implication that people took, was that somehow this defence attorney was in support of pedophiles because he had the gall to represent someone who had been charged with a criminal act. Do members see the fundamental problem with that? He did not say it exactly. It was implied. The court seemed to agree that the implication was there because it forced the Leader of the Opposition into a settlement.

If the Leader of the Opposition was not afraid of having his day in court, why did he settle? I presume he received advice from his lawyers who told him he was in deep trouble and that he had better cut a deal, settle and get out.

The fundamental principle in our justice system is that whether we like the charge or not, whether or not in our opinion the person is as guilty as we can imagine, it is not up to him and it is not up to any one of us to sit in judgment of a fellow citizen who has been charged but has not yet had their day in court or had an opportunity to present a defence and tell his or her story.

That did not seem to matter to the then member of the Alberta legislature. He felt that it was very justifiable, outside of the protection of that chamber, to publicly castigate this person.

If we want to talk about ethics, I think it is indefensible for him to make that kind of assertion as someone who has tried to stand tall as a member of the Alberta legislature in a very important position, who I believe was a minister of labour, who certainly was a finance minister, who worked in that distinguished position in that distinguished facility and who was entrusted with the confidence of the people of his riding.

I do not know how anyone, including that particular member, can defend it. It grates on us a bit on this side of the House to see someone who actually did that stand here and lecture us about ethics. I do not know that they on that side understand the implications of the word.

Then he left town and came to Ottawa as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, leaving behind him a bill for the taxpayers as a result of the settlement that was made as a result of the letter that he wrote. As a result of the unethical practice of castigating a member of the bar in the province of Alberta and attacking that person with his personal views, he left behind an $800,000 tab for the taxpayers in Alberta to pick up.

There is a former attorney general from Alberta in the House. I find it hard to believe that the hon. gentleman can stand with a straight face or can stomach the activity by the person who is now his leader.

To give members another example of this holier than thou populist prairie preacher who comes into the House of Commons pretending to be the new sheriff in town, pretending he is going to change the way we do things, this is the fellow—

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I get a chuckle out of things that are said over there, but it is interesting that the former speaker accused one of the NDP members of degrading the discussion. All we have seen in this House, and once again we see today by putting this motion forward—

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

But she was re-elected.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly where the auditor general suggested it should go. It went into general revenue. When it goes into general revenue it is used like all sources, whether it is GST, income tax or corporate tax, it is used for all sources of the government's priority.

The real question for the member opposite would be, what does the government do when the insurance plan takes a dip, when the economy goes down and unemployment goes up? They live in never never land. They think it will never happen, that things will just carry on.

I have some news for them. The United States economy is experiencing some severe trouble and there will be some impact. We are already seeing it in some areas of this country. What this government has done is made sure that the employment insurance program, which will benefit workers and the little guy they pretend to represent, is sustainable and will be there to support those people who need it.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I guess by extrapolation what the hon. member is saying is that everybody else in the country except the wise people of his riding are stupid. I would think that is a pretty unfair analysis from that perspective.

I will clarify something. When I used the example of life insurance I made the point that people were paying a premium on the presumption that it was there to protect them. With their employment insurance premium, they are betting they will lose their jobs and the insurance company is betting they will not. Obviously the workers hope the insurance company is right and they will not lose their jobs.

I know it is a hard concept for the hon. member to understand but maybe if he has a chance to read it in Hansard with a highlighter he will figure it out.

In this bill the government has recognized that the intensity rule needs to be changed, which is part of the problem the member talked about when he talked about seasonal workers. It does not matter whether they are from Timmins, Ontario or from Acadie—Bathurst. It is a national program for all Canadians.

We have recognized that some of the changes that occurred in 1996 were punitive against the workers. I would have expected that member in particular to stand and applaud the government for having the courage to recognize that and making those changes.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. I knew she would get there eventually. The reality is that the auditor general recommended that the so-called surplus from more cashflow in than we are paying out in good economic times should go to general revenue. We simply adopted the auditor general's recommendation.

Let me be clear. The member overlooked one point I made in my speech. Let us take ourselves either 10 years back or maybe 10 years ahead to a point where there is less money coming in from employment insurance premiums than we are paying out in benefits and when the plan is in a deficit.

If that plan is left to stand alone, does that then mean the plan is unable to live up to the commitment or the benefits that will be needed at a time when the economy takes a downturn? Or, does that mean the government will write a cheque, which I know is the NDP way having served under Bob Rae for five years, whenever it goes down below the break even line?

We cannot have it both ways. Employment insurance benefits workers, but it is also paid for by companies and employers as well as the workers. It is a bilateral payment agreement that ensures the money will be there when it is needed. We cannot have it both ways, like the NDP would, by simply spending it into oblivion and putting it in a place where it is no longer financially sustainable.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asks how I would know. I know quite well that it is extremely important to recognize that employment insurance is not a regional insurance program but a national program for all Canadians. It is there to help the fishers in Newfoundland and on the west coast, the construction workers in Ontario and all those across this great land.

The changes being made in this bill are based on the fact that the changes that were put in place in 1996 were in some instances punitive, although they were not meant to be.

It takes courage for a government to admit its mistakes. The intensity rule reduced EI premiums for repeat claimants from 55% down to 50%. The Liberal government found that eliminating the rule did not significantly change the number of claimants, and so it questioned the benefit of ever having introduced it. The government said that it was punitive to workers who needed the employment insurance fund perhaps more than those in other parts of the country.

Members opposite talk about the economic status of parts of the country. It is true that the economy in some parts of Canada is not as strong as it is in other parts. We have certainly experienced a boom since 1993 when the government came into office. Certainly that has been the case in Ontario. I do not deny that.

We also know there have been problems in the maritimes where employment insurance needs to be adjusted to ensure people in that part of this great country are treated more fairly. We are eliminating the intensity rule. Let us be clear about that. We have said it was punitive and that we put it in for a specific purpose.

I remind members that one of the reasons we put it in place was to stop large corporations such as General Motors, Ford or others, from quite legally using the employment insurance fund as an economic tool. They could shut down the assembly line for weeks while they retooled to switch to another vehicle, simply lay off the workers and allow them to go on UI or EI. Once the retooling was done they could bring the workers back.

We saw that as corporate manipulation of an employment insurance program which was put in place to provide insurance to replace income loss due to job loss. It was not for large corporations to use as an economic tool.

We put it there for a good reason, but recognized that it became punitive to those people who consistently had to rely on employment insurance. Let us also recognize that they continue to pay the premiums. The intensity rule is gone.

Let me talk about the clawback. This is one of the areas where workers in Ontario will benefit most in terms of their income. When workers attain a combined annual family income of a certain level, at income tax time the government starts clawing back the employment insurance benefits they may have received.

When Mr. Mulroney was Prime Minister I believe the level was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $64,000 or $65,000. Workers at that time could be on employment insurance for a couple of months, work for the balance of the year, exceed $65,000, and Revenue Canada at income tax time would claw back their benefits.

It seemed to us that was too high. The changes we made in 1996 reduced it to $48,750, and then again reduced it to $39,000. In some ridings one may be able to live with a family on $39,000 and have EI clawed back although it is not a lot of money. However, if a worker lives in the GTA, works in the construction industry and has an income of $39,000, at which point the government starts clawing back benefits because he or she was unemployed for four weeks or eight weeks or something in that nature, it is definitely too low a threshold.

It was members of this caucus who fought and spoke passionately about returning the clawback level to a more reasonable $48,750, so that if second or third repeat EI claimants are off for a period of time they would see when their incomes exceed $48,750—by the way, first time claimants are exempt from any of this—a clawback of benefits to a maximum of 30% of the income over and above.

It seems to me members opposite, supposed champions of the little guy, should stand and applaud that kind of recognition of economic reality. It is an extremely important position.

I will speak briefly about apprenticeship training. The member for Winnipeg Centre asked the Tories if they would support eliminating the two week waiting period for apprenticeship trainees. I think that makes a lot of sense.

I intend to work at seeing that happen in committee. If it does not happen, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. We should continue. I believe it is a sound argument and a fair argument because we do not give enough recognition in my view to apprentices.

I had a private member's bill, and the member for Winnipeg Centre had one that mirrored mine, that would have provided national standards for apprenticeship training from sea to sea to sea. We recognize high school diplomas and university degrees anywhere in the country regardless of where they are obtained. We recognize them without a problem.

Why then do we not recognize the qualifications of an apprentice in every corner of Canada? I know we do in some instances. With the red seal program some 44 apprenticeship programs are recognized nationally, but not all of them are covered.

It seemed like a very logical bill that should have been supported by all sides of the House. I really thought there was a chance for unanimity. The problem that arose was that there were two particular parties in the House more dedicated to provincial authority, provincial responsibility and the delivery of programs at the provincial level than they were to supporting national standards.

My bill would not have changed the delivery mechanism for apprenticeship training. In Ontario we have a wonderful system through our community colleges supported by the provincial government. In Ontario we would continue to deliver the apprenticeship funding and the programs at the provincial level, but it would allow for national standards to be put in place that would have no impact on provincial governments.

Unfortunately, the way things work around this place, my bill was not allowed to be votable. It was not allowed on the floor of the House for a vote of all members because the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc had provincialism as their top agenda. They are more concerned about that than they are about nation building.

I challenge every member of the House to strive to help young people, apprentices, to develop. It is fine for us to say that we would like all our kids to be doctors and lawyers, but the reality is that we need plumbers, bricklayers, pipefitters and carpenters. As a matter of fact my youngest son starts a week today as a carpenter's apprentice. We need all those trades to help build the nation. We should be supporting them and we should be proud of them.

In the interest of moving the debate along, I conclude by saying that the government has shown a lot of courage. We have adopted fair wage. I have not heard anyone from the New Democratic Party applaud the government for doing it. A worker's wages can no longer be used as the determining factor in awarding a contract if it is led by the government. We have adopted fair wage as a policy. We have adopted changes to the Income Tax Act that will allow for the tracing of contracts given out so that all the proper taxes are paid, that the unions have a chance to know who is doing the work and where it is being done, and that the workers are being paid properly.

We have also put in place a program of changes to employment insurance. Here is the construction trades list: repeal the intensity rule, which has been done; fix the small weeks problem, which has been done for claimants in some areas; fund apprentices, which has not been done yet; adjust the clawback, which has done and change the re-entrant rules, which has been done.

We are not only listening to the people in the maritimes who rewarded us with a substantial amount of confidence in returning a large number of Liberal Party members to the House of Commons. That should have sent a message to both the New Democrats and the Tories, but apparently they did not get it.

We are progressive. We want these changes to go through. I hope to see additional changes made at committee which will benefit the men and women in the hardworking families that help build this great nation.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Members can get excited if they want but they should talk to some of the auto workers and steel workers. Employment insurance is there to give all Canadians some security. It is there so workers will know that when there are problems on the car assembly line in Windsor or in Brampton, an insurance program is available for them.

Members opposite chirp about seasonal work as if there were not four seasons anywhere but in their ridings. What about the construction industry? Do we not have construction workers working through all four seasons? We all know the difficulty of pouring concrete in freezing weather and doing other jobs.