Steve Mahoney

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

There will be a lot of substance if the hon. member would care to listen. What they actually fight for is a little caucus, just to set the record straight.

However, there is a reason I have made that point. It is curious that members from eastern Canada come here and fight the changes to the Employment Insurance Act, when in fact the message came through loud and clear, through 19 Liberal seats in the maritimes, that they wanted change.

One must also remember that our government monitored the changes made in 1996 and realized that they needed an additional review. That is what this is about. Contrary to the negativity that tends to come from across the floor, they should be saying that they are pleased the government is listening.

Some members may be surprised to hear that there are members on this side of the House, myself included, who would support additional changes that may come out of committee, such as the apprenticeship issue mentioned by my good friend from Winnipeg. It makes a lot of sense.

What is employment insurance? It reminds me somewhat of the definition of life insurance. One pays a premium to a company betting that one will die. The company accepts the premium betting the client will live, and the client hopes they are right.

Employment insurance is very similar. The employees pay a premium along with the employer. In doing so, the employees are betting that they might need the use of the fund. They are betting that they could lose their job. The employment insurance commission bets the employees will not, and the employees hope it is right.

EI is an insurance program and not a social program which, with all due respect to my colleagues in the NDP, is how they view it. It is an insurance plan based on studies and actuarially sound financial data. The premiums are adjusted up and down as the economy functions.

Members of the Conservative Party say that the premiums are too high. It was not too many years ago, under former Prime Minister Mulroney, when the premiums exceeded $3. Under this Liberal government the premiums are down to $2.25. Let us not speak of premiums being too high, or of the surplus that my friends on the opposite side so eloquently discuss.

I would like to take the members back in a time machine about 10 years and have them tell me what the surplus was. Was there a surplus at all? In reality there was not. There was a deficit. Let us look at the history of the unemployment/employment insurance program. At the end of the day it is the government of the day that is responsible for ensuring that EI money is available to workers at 55% of their earned income. It is the government's responsibility to provide the money in good times and in bad. Ultimately the government of the day, whatever party, is on the hook.

How was the surplus created? It is not rocket science. More revenue is being generated in total premiums, both from workers and from corporations, than is being paid out in benefits because the unemployment rate is low. Therefore not all the money is needed.

What happens if the economy turns? Are we naive enough to think that we will keep rolling along, that there will never be a change, a bump in the road or a downturn? We already see it happening.

Employment insurance is not, with all due respect, just for Atlantic Canada.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks by some of our colleagues in trying to portray themselves as the only ones who fight for the little guy.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be the first to congratulate, well in advance, the member opposite on his eventual ascendancy to the position of leader of what is left of the Progressive Conservative Party. In all seriousness, I do appreciate the remarks and the question.

Yes, I do think there are things we can do to improve our opportunities at legislative committees. It was referenced in the throne speech, and I think there are things we can do to improve the House. However, if we approach it from the negative side and say that the role of backbench MPs has been denigrated and that we have been stripped of power and all those kinds of thing, I do not think that is at all helpful.

There are many ways that we can improve the legislative system, particularly at committee, while at the same time recognizing, as I have tried to do, the tremendous contributions by members from all sides of the House in their work, whether in their caucuses or in committee.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I knew that one would come back to haunt me as soon as I said it.

The hon. member knows that what I am referring to is that all of our colleagues in all caucuses are not sitting in the House listening to all of us speak. They are working in committees and in their offices, where hopefully they have their televisions on listening to us as we put forth our positions and either defend or attack. This is the process.

Having 301 people sitting in this place would not be the most constructive use of their time and would grind business in the House to a halt. The job here involves a tremendous amount of committee work on legislative committees, a tremendous amount of caucus work on caucus committees, returning phone calls of constituents and meeting with groups who have particular issues, such as the agricultural group that is going around meeting with MPs today. They have things that must be done. The hon. member knows that.

While he is correct in quoting me, he also knows that, in the context of my remarks, I said that it was vitally important that all members do their job as MPs and be respected for that. On CPAC last night, the Bloc member made a big point about the fact that there are not very many members in their seats when speeches are going on. There is a very good and justifiable reason for that and I believe if the taxpayers know the truth, they will support that reason.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I do not know if he was listening to the same speech.

I respect his right to disagree with my viewpoints. I respect his right not to like what I am saying. I do not frankly care very much but I respect it.

I would add that this is Thursday of the first week and we will be reintroducing the EI legislation. I hope the member will support the changes. We will be reintroducing the young offenders legislation. I hope the members of his caucus do not do what they did last time. They introduced over 3,000 amendments, most of them changing a comma to a semicolon, which was nonsensical, all because they were throwing a temper tantrum.

The effect of my speech and my opinion, very strongly held I might add, is that when members denigrate members of parliament they do a disservice to all people who elect us to come here. If that member does not agree, I am sure he would rather be elected to serve only in the national assembly in the province of Quebec. I would invite him to retire to his own community and do it in that venue if that is where he is more comfortable.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Yes, we do, especially that member.

It seems that the best way to get a yuk out of the voters is to run down the job we hold. Anyone who does that does themselves a disservice and a dishonour and in fact does their constituents a disservice and a dishonour because they are not being truthful about what we can accomplish.

Let me just shift gears a little. In addition to the reform of parliament, one of the issues we deal with is respect of parliamentarians. This is addressed in the throne speech. It occurred to me this morning that we have a new game in the House of Commons. It is called “Who wants to be a millionaire?” In the game, an initial question is asked. In the television show it is called the fastest finger question; whoever can answer the question the fastest gets to be the candidate.

Here is the question: who wants to get back into the pension plan? Guess who won? The member for Edmonton North had the fastest finger and managed to turn an $89,000 reinvestment into an asset that has been estimated to be worth more than $1 million. She indeed has become the latest millionaire. It might be more. I have a problem with that. If I was one of her constituents my question would be “Is that your final answer?” I would want to know why she railed against that as being somehow unfair, as being overly rich.

Not only did the member for Edmonton North do it but her entire party platform was built once again on the denigration of MPs and their role and the fact that they tried to remember the pigs, as my hon. friend mentioned, the snorting and the buttons. It was absolutely disgraceful behaviour. We have grown to become accustomed to it. They wear sombreros and drape old jalopy cars in Canadian flags. They use anything it takes to get a little attention. How to get on the nightly news: bring a pig into the House of Commons and snort a little.

One of the members from that caucus failed to respond to a question he was asked by one of my colleagues when he gave a speech about morality. The member stood in his place all high and mighty. This reminds me of the sixties when we had the moral rearmament army driving around the country trying to sell its vision of Christianity.

I heard another member say that he was disgusted that Christianity was attacked. Well I am a Christian and I was not attacked. Why is that? It is simple: I do not put my religion in my platform. I do not say to people, as the Leader of the Opposition does, “here is what I believe in: I do not believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe in three strikes for young offenders then they are out and the key is thrown away. I also believe in capital punishment. If you vote for me these are the things I believe in but I will not implement any of them”. What a remarkable campaign that would be.

Canadians are used to people standing up and saying what they believe in and what they will do if they vote for them. This is a pretty normal, reasonable position for a politician to take. People want to know our beliefs so they can either believe us or not or so they can agree with us or not. To say that one believes in all of this and yet not implement it, Canadians obviously do not buy that.

I said we are judged by the lowest common denominator in this place. Here is another example of why Canadians get upset at politicians. When the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Alberta legislature, he openly and publicly issued a slanderous letter criticizing a lawyer in the local community and he was sued. He then settled for over $800,000. Guess what he did? He jumped on his horse and rode east to Ottawa claiming to be the new sheriff in town and left the taxpayers of Alberta stuck with a bill of $800,000. That is the kind of denigration that causes people to lose faith in parliamentarians and in the system.

It is not an empty House of Commons. Canadians are smart enough to know that MPs are working hard and not just sitting here wasting their time. They are working hard on behalf of taxpayers. They know that jumping back into a pension plan, that leaving taxpayers with an $800,000 bill, while at the same time claiming to be the great protector of the taxpayer dollar, is frankly not being honest with taxpayers. It is my view that gentleman and that lady will pay the price. When asked “is that your final answer” people will say our final answer is “you're cooked”.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

I thank the member. I find it repugnant when I hear opposition members level these criticisms that they know are not based on honesty or truth. They know this full well because they all work in caucuses where their members are busy working at the job of being a member of parliament. In my experience in this place, the job can start as early as 6 a.m. and wind up as late as midnight, five or six days a week.

I do not look for sympathy from anyone for the hours that I put in. I have been doing this job in one form or another for 23 years. There was a two year period when I was out of office due to health and fatigue reasons—the voters were sick and tired of me—but I came back because I really and honestly believe that it is one of the most honourable professions and important callings that anyone in this country can aspire to. I hope I live long enough to see the day when one of my sons will stand in this place. I hope that happens, but if it does not, maybe one of their children will stand in this place.

At one time I would have had the opportunity to see my own father sitting in the Senate. Unfortunately he had a stroke and was unable to take the seat given to him by Pierre Trudeau. It would have been one of the proudest moments of my life, yet we also unfairly denigrate the role of Senators.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

There are exceptions. I forgot about him, but even he was reined in, grabbed and pulled back, and he realized how silly and nonsensical it was to get violent and physical over the democratic issues we fight about. We do not kill one another. Our weapons, I would like to think, and it is scary to think it, are our minds. Words are our ammunition and we hurl them at one another with some enthusiasm, both during speeches and in question period when the odd bit of heckling occurs.

I reject the attempts by the opposition to paint government backbenchers as ineffective and unimportant and to denigrate their role. To have the confidence of his or her constituents is indeed one of the most honoured positions that a man or woman can have, and in my case my constituency is one of the largest by population in the country. They say to each and every one of us that they want us to fight in Ottawa for a better Canada, for a better Mississauga West or a better Ontario.

On CPAC last night there was a debate among three representatives, our whip from the Liberals, the House leader from the Alliance, and a member from the Bloc. The member from the Bloc made the point that the House is always empty when we stand in our place to speak. It is not completely empty now, but where do people think our colleagues are? They are not sleeping. They are not shopping. They are working.

We have a system that is extremely complex, and frankly, having 300 people sitting in this room to listen to me go on would be a total waste of their time. I am sure hon. members would agree. It might be entertaining and fun from time to time, but it would not be the most productive use of the brain cells that God gave them.

Where should they be? They are in committee. They are in meetings. They are talking to their constituents. They are meeting with staff and the bureaucracy. They are meeting with each other. They are working on the issues I spoke of, whether that be regarding children, the CBC, housing or the agricultural community.

If we want to talk about the effectiveness of a backbencher, let us talk about the member for Toronto—Danforth, who led the charge by hosting an event at the Air Canada Centre. I was there and it was packed. What was it about? It was not about the city of Toronto. It was not about transfer payments. It was not about tax cuts. It was about farmers. We had a well-known member from downtown Toronto leading the charge because our constituents in the urban communities we represent need farmers. They need successful farms.

That is what Canada is about. It is about people helping people, realizing that if we help one another we are going to create jobs, economic growth and benefits and build a better country.

This is another example of a backbencher who has a tremendous contribution to make to this place.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, congratulations to you. You said you are learning in the job. Many people around here will be doing that over the next months and years to come. However I am sure you are a quick study, having worked with you in our caucus structure, and will pick it up very quickly.

I thank the voters of Mississauga West for once again showing confidence in my leader and my party and in my representative ability to be here in Ottawa and represent the three communities of Erin Mills, Meadowvale and Streetsville. I have had the privilege of representing much of the area of Mississauga West for about 21 out of the last 23 years, as a city councillor, an MPP in Ontario and, since 1997, as a member of this wonderful House.

My wife, of course, is also a municipal councillor in the same community , re-elected for her fourth term on city council with over 92% of the vote. My only hope is that she does not run against me one day.

Our family really has been tremendously active and involved in the community over the past number of years, and we really deem it an honour to represent those communities here in Ottawa, at the municipal level, or indeed at the provincial level.

I am interested, though, in what seems to be the debate du jour or the issue of the week or the focus of the opposition when it comes to this place. Opposition members talk about reform of parliament. They seem to want to hang their hats on the issue that somehow the role of backbench members of parliament has been denigrated, that we have had the thumb pressed down upon us and that our ability to represent our constituents has been somehow mysteriously negated by the PMO or by the system. I take great exception to that.

I would like to share with members and with anyone listening the success stories of some of those so-called backbenchers that I have experienced by being in this place since 1997.

My good friend from Mississauga South was referenced in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday for the books he has written and for the work he has done on fetal alcohol syndrome and the effects on children. He and other members of the social policy caucus have had a tremendous impact on driving the government agenda toward investing in children and toward recognizing that children are our most important assets. The government intends to support children, to eliminate poverty for children and to provide educational opportunities for children and for adults, as was said in the throne speech.

That member would tell us that he did not do it alone. He may have led the issue from the point of view of the fetal alcohol syndrome aspect, but there were many other issues that were dealt with by the group. That was really true, constructive, positive work, done on behalf of the entire caucus, the government and their constituents, in order to drive an issue that they believed in.

There are others. I recall that in the last parliament the member for Trinity—Spadina led a task force dealing with the banking issue and the mergers. Many members of caucus were involved in countless meetings. The caucus committee travelled and met with pro bank advocates and anti bank merger advocates. The committee put together a very thoughtful report, which in my view drove the agenda of the government.

Is that ineffective? Is that a member of parliament or a group of backbenchers having their rights and their powers stripped from them? If some think it is, I beg to differ.

I think of the member for York North and her almost heroic dedication to the environment. I think of the conferences she has held, inviting experts from all over the world to meet in Room 200 in West Block. Many of my colleagues have attended and have seen the tremendous effort, hard work and dedication that this backbench member put into fighting on environmental issues, not only for her constituents, not only for the people of Canada, but for the planet.

On cultural issues, I think of my good friend from Parkdale—High Park. In my view, her sole effort has driven the caucus and the government, with support from backbench members, to re-invest in CBC, to say that we believe CBC is the electronic highway that goes from sea to sea to sea. There are communities that would be isolated without the good work of the CBC. That backbench member, along with many of her colleagues, was indeed successful in doing the job of a member of parliament.

The member from Scarborough East has spent countless hours in meetings on the housing issue. He managed to drive the agenda so that $750 million was made available for the homeless. His efforts as the chair of that committee drove the government to do it. Further, there is an additional investment of $850 million for affordable housing as we work with our partners in the municipal and private sectors to address the issue. Did that item just appear or somehow fall from the sky? Members know that is not the case.

Members know that every one of the issues to which I have referred have been driven hard by backbench members of the government. I categorically reject any of the nonsense that members of parliament and their relevance have been devalued in this place, in the broader precinct of Ottawa and in the country. The talent in this room, on all sides, is abundant. Someone said the other day that here there are 301 A-type personalities in one room, so we should be so surprised that from time to time there are a little heckling, a little fire and a little controversy. What a shock. Could we imagine this place without that?

In true fashion we all know that the distance between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is the distance there is when a man is standing with a sword in each hand and the tips are barely touching. The symbolism is that we do not kill each other. We do not, although we might like to at times, run across the floor and start punching each other out like members do in some parliaments of the world. This is the greatest example of parliamentary democracy—

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my congratulations to you. I am delighted to see you in the chair. I know that you will be fair and patient with some of the goings on that may or may not occur in this place.

I wonder if the member would answer the question. He said that his morals would preclude him from buying back into a pension plan that he and many of his colleagues, including the hon. member from Edmonton North, have criticized vocally, used as an election platform, and told anyone who would listen how awful it was that the plan was accepted. Could the hon. member comment on that?