Steve Mahoney

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, clearly this is not a budget. It is an economic statement. It says so right on the document. It is something that the finance minister does each and every fall as he sees how the economy is performing.

We committed during budget 2000 that we would go faster if finances allowed us to do so. This is the appropriate time.

I am sorry if the hon. member's party is not ready with its platform. However, very clearly the government has an obligation to say to Canadians “Here is where we believe we should be going with your economic future and we want to put exactly what we are prepared to do on the table”. That has been done with this document and it clearly shows the vision for the country.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

If the member would stop chirping, I will talk about students. Do not take my word for it. Take the media's word which talks about a $3,200 tax credit going to students to help them with their rent and their textbooks. I do not think the member has even taken the time to read the document if he actually has to stand in this place and ask what this does for students.

This is one of the most progressive documents, which will assist students right across Canada with research and investment, and R and D in the universities, money for textbooks and tax credits to help students pay their rent. It is visionary both in terms of eliminating the debt, with $28 billion gone now, and a commitment to reduce the debt every single year that we are in office.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

The benefit of that amounts to $1.7 billion in payments that no longer have to be made. That is $1.7 billion that can be used to invest in students.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to get a question about debt and deficit reduction from a member of the Conservative Party.

With all due respect, this member was not here. Other members of his family might have been but he was not here during that time. The reality is that we do not need any lessons from the federal Tories about how to eliminate debt.

What we have done with this budget is wiped out $28 billion. It is gone, kaput, done.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Yes, Mississauga. They would get together, ask how much the pie is and then say “Here is your share based on per capita”. They would eliminate regional development.

What that party has attempted to do to decimate the HRDC plans is a national disgrace, because the people it is hurting are the people who need the most help. We have heard members from that party say that they consider people in the maritimes lazy. We have heard them denigrate all the different groups in the country that we support and believe in.

We believe in economic regional development because it creates jobs. It creates pride. It creates self-respect for Canadians wherever they live in the country. Just because people happen to live in oil-rich Alberta does not give them the right to have a better standard of living than somebody who lives in Newfoundland or New Brunswick.

It is time to go to the Canadian people, put our two visions on the table and let the people decide.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to deal with a few specifics but I would rather talk a little about the philosophy of what the mini-budget is and what it is not.

First let me deal with what it is not. It is not a document that mirrors in any way whatsoever the philosophies or the attitudes of the Conservative government in the province of Ontario. I want to respond directly to my good friend the treasurer, the minister of finance for Ontario, Ernie Eves, who is quoted in the paper as saying “Give credit where credit is due. I think finance minister Martin is moving in the right direction. We have been preaching a lot of the stuff that Mr. Martin seems to have picked up on since 1995”.

Let me be clear. One thing we did not do which Mr. Eves and the Ontario government did do, is we did not borrow money to give a tax cut back to the wealthiest people in the country. How does one give a tax cut while continuing to run a deficit? That is absolutely crass politics at its worst. While we appreciate the fact that my hon. friend in Ontario congratulates the minister and the government for bringing in a budget that he seems to like, we do not need any lessons on how to balance our books, how to reduce the tax load, or how to pay down the debt. In fact, this government has shown true leadership in all of those regards.

I have been interested to hear some of the responses. I am sure the members opposite were busy with all the spin doctors yesterday trying to figure out how in the world they were going to criticize this without looking like they want to take back things that the government is giving to Canadians.

This is not a socialist budget, I can assure members. It is absolutely not. I heard the leader of the NDP stand in her place, and in a scrum, say that the government has clearly decided that its agenda is based on tax reductions. That is absolutely correct.

What does it do in terms of helping families? Let us take a look at some of the examples. This is what is so puzzling when I hear the socialists stand up and say that the government did not do enough here, that it did not do enough there.

A two-earner family of four with a combined income of $60,000 last year paid about $5,700 in federal tax. Next year their taxes will fall by over $1,000, a first year cut of 18%. A cut of $1,000 for a family of four, a husband, a wife and two kids, means that they have $1,000 more that they can use perhaps for their children's education, for a family vacation or to pay some bills they are behind on. Is that not all good social policy? It makes a lot of sense to me.

A single mother with one child earning $25,000 a year received a net benefit of just $1,400 last year. Next year she will receive an additional $800, for a total benefit of $2,200. Maybe the silk stocking socialists that inhabit the chairs in this place just do not think that $800 is a lot of money. Let me tell them that to a single mom in Mississauga $800 is a heck of a lot of money. She can use that money to benefit her children, to pay for something she needs, to help pay for their education or to help pay for their clothing. Of course it is a social benefit. Would the NDP take it away? Would it suggest that we not give that tax break?

A one-earner family with two children making $40,000 last year paid about $3,325 in federal tax. Next year they will pay about $1,100 less, a reduction of 32%. This is a family in which one spouse goes to work and the other stays home as a caregiver, with two children. They are saving $1,100. This is real money. This is real money back in the pockets of Canadians who need that money.

We absolutely have the financial house in order in Canada and we have turned around and given back that money to where it belongs, in the hands and the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers.

Let me say what it also is not. It is not a Bloc budget. Why? It actually strengthens Canada, which is clearly not on its agenda, not in its interests and not in its party platform. It would rather continue to drive wedges. Not only does this budget strengthen Canada, it benefits Quebecers, because a lot of the people I referred to, the two-earner family, the single mom, the one-earner family with two kids, live in Quebec. They are going to see that money coming back. Going into an election—let us admit that is what is going to happen—the people of Quebec are going to look at this and ask the Bloc why it is criticizing the fact that the Government of Canada is giving them back some of their money.

I can tell the House what this is also not. This is not a federal Conservative budget. We had a number of years of federal Conservative budgets under Brian Mulroney and, I might add, with the assistance of the current leader of the Conservative Party in this place who was a member of the Mulroney cabinet. With his assistance they managed to drive this country to the state where people were saying, in New York and other places around the world, that Canada was bordering on being a third world country, that Canada had run up a deficit, an overdraft, of $42 billion with no idea of how to pay it off.

The Canadian people had an idea. While we stand here and take credit for it, the true credit for eliminating the deficit, and for this budget, belongs to the Canadian people.

It is not a conservative budget. It is far-reaching. It is visionary. It sends a message to all Canadians that says the government knows they have suffered through years of cutbacks and years of turmoil, and it is time because we do have a surplus, not because there is an election. If there is an election in November or in April, what is the difference? There is a fall mini-budget or economic update that is done every year.

Those members know this. For them to suggest that the Alliance should be able to put out its policy book and tell everybody that it will do some of the nonsensical stuff it is talking about and that we should just sit back and do nothing, excuse me? We have a constituency in the country, a very large constituency. We are the only party with representatives from sea to sea to sea, everywhere in the country.

This mini-budget is not an Alliance budget, I can tell hon. members that. The Alliance claims that we have somehow stolen its ideas. What nonsense. It wants to put in a flat tax. I will be making a statement later about what that really is, a three-hump camel, so I will not go into it at the moment.

Let me just tell the House that the Alliance wants to bring in a flat tax. Do hon. members know why? Because it is simple for that party to understand. It can ask Canadians how they would like to pay 17% or maybe 25%. It thinks that is simple to understand.

What is the result of that? Add up the Alliance numbers. If the Alliance was putting out a budget of this nature it would turn the federal government into nothing more than a head waiter for the provincial governments right across the country. It would put the situation in such a disastrous state that all we would need would be annual meetings of first ministers who would meet somewhere, who knows, maybe in Charlottetown, or likely in Edmonton.

[Apprenticeship National Standards Act, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, let me say first a profound thank you to all the members from all parties who stayed here late, through the royal assent journey down the hall and then back here, to discuss what I think we all agree is an extremely important issue. We may not agree on how we are going to implement apprenticeship training across the country, who is going to do it or what the standards will be, but certainly I did not hear anyone from any party stand up and make derogatory comments toward apprenticeship training programs. We know there is tremendous benefit to be had for our young people.

I also recognize that with my private members' bill having been deemed non-votable at committee some months ago, there is a tendency to assume that this is a bit of a waste of time. I do not think it is because it is important that members in this place put forward their views and their parties' views. I heard three truly national parties, the New Democrats, the Progressive Conservatives and of course my party talking about national programs. I heard what I would call two regional or provincial parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the CA talking about protecting the interests of the provinces.

I am not against protecting the interests of the provinces and working with the provinces, as the parliamentary secretary has called for, to deliver training programs. I just fail to understand, and will look for other ways to skin the cat if you will, why anyone who has any kind of a national vision would object to providing standards that are accepted right across the country.

We would recognize high school diplomas across Canada. We certainly recognize university degrees across Canada. We certainly recognize skilled medical trainees across Canada. Why we would not recognize apprenticeship in the same way as we recognize those perhaps sends a message as to how our society feels, tragically and unfortunately, toward those particular trades. I hope that is not true, because we should value those trades and the young people who make decisions to build careers.

I want to finish by touching on one aspect which my hon. friend from Winnipeg mentioned and that is the entrepreneurial opportunities that are failing to be recognized. I have worked with young entrepreneurs for the past year and a half in developing a task force report to implement programs within our government that will help young people build their own careers and businesses. As my hon. friend pointed out, what better way to create new businesses and new opportunities than to help people get the technological skills needed to build the infrastructure, the buildings and roads, the cities and communities, the community centres and everything else to help people build careers for themselves. They will create jobs. They will build families and generate children within those families who will go on in careers and apprenticeship training as well in the building trades.

I still believe, notwithstanding that my bill is not votable and that it effectively dies on the order paper, it is an extremely important debate that we have had here. I thank all members who participated for putting forward their vision on this very important issue.

[Apprenticeship National Standards Act, September 21st, 2000]

moved that Bill C-318, an act to require the establishment of national training and certification standards for trades that receive apprenticeship training, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long road to get to the point where we could bring this issue to the floor of the House of Commons.

In a nutshell, let me just explain the principle. We have a situation in the country where apprenticeship training does not rise to the same standards that we see in other countries around the world. I will go into some details to give a comparison, for example with Germany.

Yet we have young people right across Canada who are looking for opportunities that may not follow in what is perhaps some of the more popular areas today such as IT, high technology or something of that nature. They are interested in working in construction, in building trades, at being plumbers and at being carpenters. They are working with their hands. They also require a great deal of technological training today, unlike our forefathers from several years ago when the latest technology was not available.

I think there is a fundamental problem in our society that led me some three and a half years ago when I arrived on Parliament Hill to draft a private member's bill. It was not easy, I might add, to get the bureaucracy in Ottawa to even agree to draft it. I will go into the reasons for that in a moment.

I wanted to draft a private member's bill telling young people that if they became apprentices, if they received a ticket for whatever trade they wished to pursue in the province of Ontario, and if they received an opportunity to work in that trade in the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta or Newfoundland, they would be able to do that. Their apprenticeship ticket or licence would be recognized equally in every province, territory, region, municipality, village and community in Canada.

Sadly that is not the case today. It came as a great surprise to me to find out that we did not have the necessary procedures in place to allow for the mobility of our young people to ply their given trade across the country. I did some research. I met with people in the trade labour movement, particularly in the building and construction trades, to find out why this was.

I was informed that we have a system called the red seal system for registering trades. There is a copy of it here. It is fairly extensive. It covers 44 trades across the country. The principle is that if one receives a red seal designation it should therefore qualify one as an apprentice anywhere in Canada. One of the fundamental problems, and I think this goes to the heart of our constitution, is that not all provinces and territories recognize all 44 of these trades with the red seal designation.

Certainly some of the more obvious ones, mechanics and cooks or jobs of that nature, are recognized in most of the provinces but many are not. I would also submit to the House that there could be more than 44 trades involved in apprenticeship training across the country.

I was surprised when I arrived here to see the resistance from the bureaucracy. I asked what the problem was and was told that it was not federal jurisdiction. I asked the bureaucracy to help me understand. I argued about it. I understood that we had entered into training agreements and labour agreements with provinces and were at that time currently negotiating with the province of Ontario. We had agreements on the table with other provinces, but I am not talking about delivering the service of apprenticeship training. I am not talking about the actual physical educational process that might take place in a combination of learning on the job in the workplace and then attending a community college in my province or some other learning institution in other provinces.

I do not want to interfere in that. I happen to believe that the delivery of education is better handled by the provincial governments in co-operation with the school boards and with other training associations.

We may get involved, and do indeed with HRDC funding, in many of these areas where we will provide some money for these training institutions and directly channel that money to the young people who are taking the training. We do that all the time. In fact, we have seen hysteria in this place by members opposite about some of the funding from HRDC that has gone out to help these young people. That hysteria has caused a great deal of difficulty for those young people.

I do not want to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. There are those who support my bill, and I am going to share with the House who some of those people are. In addition to some members here, the critic from the NDP party from Winnipeg has been a great supporter and a believer in it. It is supported by other people in most of the provinces, if not all, in many of the ridings and communities represented by members on both sides of the House. I normally get a little partisan, but this is not a partisan issue. This is about our young people.

I cannot for the life of me understand why my own government, if it is opposed to, or the people opposite would be opposed to putting in place national standards for a young person who registers for a program or gets a job. My own son is 25 years old. He is a bright young guy. He takes after his mother obviously. He decided he wanted to be an apprentice electrician. He obtained a job. He enrolled at community college for the educational portion of it. Should he be able to work anywhere in the country? He is a Canadian citizen born in this country, educated in this country. He received an apprenticeship licence in this country but he cannot go to Quebec or he cannot go to Newfoundland because his ticket does not allow him that mobility.

Frankly, not allowing that runs contrary to the social union contract which was signed by every province save the province of Quebec. Let us think about that. The social union contract called for mobility in educational activities across Canada. It was signed by all the provinces except the province of Quebec. We understand the reluctance of Quebec to sign on to anything that would promote national unity or any kind of national activity. That is no surprise. I am not surprised that the Bloc Quebecois would be opposed to this initiative in this private bill.

At first I was a little surprised to learn that Canadian Alliance members were opposed to it, but then I guess I understand that their vision of this country is to devolve all authority and all responsibility down to the provincial level. To use the term used by our Prime Minister, he said that they wanted to be a head waiter for the provinces, that that is the role the federal government would fulfil.

Members of the Canadian Alliance would oppose this kind of national initiative because it runs contrary to their support for devolution of authority and power and the absolute dismantlement of the federal government because of their provincial views, very narrow views I might add.

I ask members to think about who has supported this bill. This bill has changed titles because of the recess of this place, but it is the same bill with a different number. It received support from business, received support from organized labour, received support from the educational community, and received support from numerous colleagues in this place. It is a bill that has a vision attached to it that would benefit all young people.

Too often in our generation, those of us in this place, we think in terms of our sons and daughters becoming doctors and lawyers, becoming experts in certain fields of technology. What will happen when the day comes when we can no longer get the workers we need to build the infrastructure, the workers we need to build the communities, the roads, the highways, the sewers, the waterpipes, the bricklayers? In fact I have had an experience where a constituent of mine was attempting to get some bricklayers and he could not get them. The union could not provide them. Do members know where he had to go to find them? It was not to Newfoundland, not to Nova Scotia. He had to go to Portugal.

Does it make sense if we have an opportunity to provide training and apprenticeships for our young people in Canada to learn how to become bricklayers, to make the kind of wonderful living that a good quality, well trained bricklayer can make, for us to be looking to Portugal to import workers?

Obviously there are situations, and the trade labour movement will support this, where one-off projects require us to use our immigration system to go out around the world to find particular workers so that we can build a particular project that will indeed save, keep and create jobs for Canadians. These are temporary worker permits and they are issued all the time.

It would not happen overnight, but one of the ways we could solve these shortages would be to encourage our young people to become apprentices, to make them proud to become bricklayers, carpenters, electricians and plumbers. Why should they not be? What honourable professions those are. This place should reflect society and frankly, society has lost sight of the true honour of working in those professions.

Let me share with hon. members a letter from the Canadian Labour Force Development Board supporting the original bill. This is from Brian Skrogs, business co-chair, and Joe Maloney, labour co-chair. This is a business-labour coalition, both sides of the spectrum. In a letter to me they said “It is our pleasure to inform you that at our meeting of June 10, 1998 there was unanimous support for supporting the bill”.

It is bipartisan unanimous support from business and labour. That is a national organization. It understands. It does not have parochial views. It is not concerned about constitutional matters. It does not care about jurisdiction and who does what. It cares about having good quality opportunities available that will create the mobility right across the land of having young Canadians do apprenticeship work in every community.

Another letter is from the Building and Construction Trades Department, affiliated with the AFL-CIO which is a huge organization. In a letter that went out to all members of parliament, it stated “We would urge the government to adopt this bill as government legislation. Further we would ask all members to support this bill, either as a private members' bill or as a government bill”.

The Building and Construction Trades Department has offices here in Ottawa and it represents people right across the country. Once again it is not concerned about jurisdiction. What it wants to see is some national standards.

Let me add that what is most interesting is that we agreed in negotiations on the bill that we would adopt the highest standards in the land which I believe are from Alberta. We would adopt the Alberta standards as national standards. I am not being parochial and saying that it has to be Ontario's way. I want the best. I want the best standards that are available to help our young people.

There is a letter urging that the government and all members support the bill from the Bridge Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers. It is an international union. This letter is to the federal minister of labour at the time from its international headquarters in New York City. It states:

Approximately three years ago at the first ministers meeting it was agreed that they would relax certain interprovincial trade barriers, one of which was the mobility of labour. However we now find ourselves in a virtual gridlock relevant to labour mobility due to the fact that certain provinces have red seal standards while others do not. Therefore, I would once again respectfully request that you endorse the bill.

I have dozens of letters from unions and business groups in every province right across Canada. I have letters from Newfoundland, New Brunswick and from Ontario in abundance. One is from the United Transportation Union and states “I am pleased that somebody has finally found the wherewithal to introduce a bill that makes such plain sense”. And it does make plain common sense.

I know there is opposition to the bill. I am pleading with those who have decided not to support the bill to reconsider that. I appreciate those who are supporting it. This is not partisanship. This is not about nation building. This is not about separatism or a national debate on Quebec. This is about our young people, about their future and their opportunities to pursue apprenticeship programs that will be recognized and effective from sea to sea to sea.

[La Francophonie Games, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last March the Government of Canada announced a contribution of $12 million to the fourth games of la Francophonie in 2001 to be held in Ottawa-Hull. The National Post , Diane Francis and a few members of the Ontario legislature recently accused the government of spending much more on these games than on any other major sports event and also stated that these games showcase only third rate athletes. As usual, they are more interested in fiction than facts.

Could the minister responsible for the games of la Francophonie—

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition on his maiden speech. However, I am a little curious and wonder if he might be able to respond to a question.

I will go back to November 29, 1999 when that member was the finance minister in Alberta. In his second quarter fiscal update he went to great pains to celebrate increased revenue in the province of Alberta, which he clearly said resulted from what were stronger energy prices.

I wonder how he reconciled his position to the people of Alberta, when he was known as the shah of Alberta, of celebrating oil prices in those days and then stand here today and take the position that he is taking when Alberta's surplus of $5 billion results directly from $4 billion in energy—