Steve Mahoney

[Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, March 28th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.

Mr. Speaker, with all the confusion that has been going on around the definition of marriage, I thought it was appropriate to introduce a private member's bill that will amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act.

It will say that a marriage is void unless it is a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife and neither the man nor the woman was married immediately prior to that union.

I believe with these amendments it will give guidance to the supreme court if there is a challenge in the future and it will clarify the issue once and for all.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that a budget is a document that shows leadership and gives direction for policies. He is talking about a specific issue that would have to do with economic development. The government has led the way in terms of economic development.

I want to respond to the hon. member. I am not sure what his question really was because I heard him taking the opportunity to bash us again on health care and then saying that was not his question. Let us be clear. The government set the level of transfer payments at $11.5 billion. We added $2.5 billion to it. We are committed to a sustainable health care program without a doubt, but we will not simply open the vault and write a blank cheque. That is not what the Canadian public wants.

While I am at it, let me suggest to the member that there is no one responsible in the country who would suggest that somehow the provincial governments should wash their hands of their responsibility as taxing authorities with relation to health care. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot take transfers from the federal treasury, invest them in some kind of savings account and then cry poor to the federal government. The member opposite might want to make political mileage out of that, but the Canadian people will not be fooled because they know better.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to get a lecture from a member of the Conservative Party on tax cuts and fiscal management. We know that the former leader of that party, the former Prime Minister and his government, introduced the GST. We know that. We understand that the Conservatives did that. We understand that they introduced the excise tax on gasoline. We understand that they did that.

At the same time, we understand that while the Conservatives want to stand and cheer on some of their accomplishments, they left office with an overdraft of $42 billion, with record debt, with an inability for the government to have any flexibility to deal with its fiscal program without making serious changes in the relationships that existed with everyone in the country.

This government bit the bullet. Now we are rewarding Canadians for their hard work by making those tax cuts.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

The member says that is a lie. The former leader of the former Reform Party who used to occupy those benches has called for the scrapping of the Canada Health Act without any kind of plan or explanation as to what it would be replaced with. I can tell members what it would be replaced with. It would be replaced with a privatized, U.S. style health care system which the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and this government would not stand for.

We could look at delivery mechanisms.

What I find really interesting is the confusion of members opposite of all parties. I do not want to single out members of the fifth party. It has been purported that the only safe seat is occupied by the member for Fundy—Royal. That was probably true before his leader opened his mouth in support of some privatization of health care coming from western Canada. That might have been true before the divisions in his party occurred when his leader did not support the clarity bill, one of the finest and clearest pieces of legislation ever put through this place. And yet other members over there did not agree with their leader. We can understand their confusion.

Let us talk about health care. This government is committed. The CHST payments have an established floor of a $11.5 billion. Members opposite were crying for nothing more than tax cuts leading up to the last budget. What happened? After we set the floor at $11.5 billion, after we provided $58 billion in tax relief, after we completely eliminated the $42 billion deficit left to us by the great legacy of the Conservative Party, after we invested in science and technology, created new seats in universities for our future, worked with our youth, helped in retraining, worked with people who were unemployed—after we did all of those things—we also provided tax cuts.

Then what happened? They stood and said “You have not transferred enough to health care”.

We put an additional $2.5 billion on the table for health care. Guess what? We found out that last year, when we put an additional $3.5 billion on the table for health care, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario chose not to use that money. They left it sitting in a trust account, wisely invested I am sure.

I do not understand. The people in my province and in my riding do not understand how they could eliminate beds in hospitals, how they could fill up emergency departments, how they could continually cry for more money to be given to health care, and then it comes out that they have not even spent the money that was allocated to them.

If anyone over there thinks that the government is about to write blank cheques for anything, they are sadly mistaken. The health care system must be accountable. It must be accessible to all, as we know, and the government will ensure that happens. However, we will not do it by simply throwing money at a problem without a clear direction with all health ministers in the country, from all provinces and territories, sitting down with our health minister and working out a deal to ensure that we have sustainable, affordable, accessible health care for generations to come.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I can understand that the members opposite do not want me discussing the spending habits of their former leader. I do not mind the fact that they would raise some concern about that. In relationship to this budget, could it be that the newest baby born in this place has somehow changed its spots? I think not.

Let us talk about health care. I do not care what we want to call it, but we have a party which clearly would abandon and scrap the Canada Health Act. If that would not have an impact on the budget—

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

That is right. There is the real boondoggle. Good line. I wish I had thought of it.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West.

Another point that needs to be looked at, once we get over the fiscal situation, are the principles. Just a short time ago a member opposite stood to talk about principles. It seems to me that the Canadian Alliance and principles is an oxymoron. Or, could it be that its members have discarded their support of the National Rifle Association and Charlton Heston? Or, could it be that while they buried the Reform Party, they buried that policy which calls for the elimination of any form of subsidy to the Canadian farmer? Is that possible? Have they actually gone into the shower and rid themselves of all of those so-called principles and policies? I think not.

Could it be that they are somehow hoping to ride into town on the wave of the new Reverend Day, who will come here with guns blazing, shouting his particular brand of political right wing extremism and the Canadian public will forget about everything they have said in the past few years?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it has been a delight to listen to some of this rather curious debate.

This is either the last day of the Reform Party or the first day of the Canadian Alliance, however one wants to cut it.

When we talk about the budget and saving money, I have a couple of questions to put forward in a rhetorical sense and members opposite can decide whether they wish to respond.

I would like to know, for example, if the former leader of the Reform/Canadian Alliance Party is sleeping in Stornoway tonight. I am not trying to be difficult. I would not want to see that man and his lovely wife out on the streets of Ottawa. Lord knows, we have a homeless problem and we do not want to exacerbate it. Is the moving van in the driveway and is the new leader of the Canadian Alliance moving in? Maybe they are all going to bunk together and have a pyjama party. That is a possibility.

There is another question which has not been addressed, which impacts on the fiscal responsibility of the government and opposition parties. Who has been paying the salary of the individual who is the immediate past leader of the Reform Party? Who has been paying the salary, which is not only an MP's salary but is also a salary that is afforded the Leader of the Opposition, along with a limousine, which of course he was not going to use? We remember that. With the limousine there is a chauffeur. That is why they call them limos, I am told.

Who has been paying for all that for the past three months as that individual travelled the nation to sell his vision of a new united alternative? In all fairness, the party which stands in this place and purports to hold the feet of the government to the fire on fiscal and financial matters should be responsible enough to tally up the bill for living in Stornoway, that illustrious bingo hall down the road, and for using the limousine for the past three months while the member openly campaigned from sea to sea to sea for his own purposes, to further his own career.

What about all the staff time? Was his staff working in the leader's office, concentrating on the business of parliament, of a member of parliament or of the Leader of the Opposition? Or, were they in some surreptitious manner helping this individual to sell his so-called vision?

I wish that one day we could turn the tables and have someone from this side of the House ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask him to explain what I suspect would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on campaigning to bury the old Reform Party and somehow launch the new.

[Family Services Of Peel, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, “Working to Your Full Potential” is a new and unique program sponsored by Family Services of Peel and funded by HRDC. The mandate of this project is to provide one-on-one counselling, support, referral and case management for persons who, in addition to job loss or joblessness, deal with obstacles interfering with job finding and job maintenance. This program is offered free of charge to unemployed individuals in my riding and throughout Peel Region.

Since its inception just six months ago the program has assisted over 125 people and is continuing its work to address the health and well-being issues of individuals and families in the neighbourhoods of Peel.

“Working To Your Full Potential” is committed to helping people recognize and strive toward their potential.

I congratulate and thank Family Services of Peel and HRDC for offering this initiative and I encourage them to keep up the good work.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have some new information that I think might be of interest to you.

The member for Lakeland mentioned the meeting on March 2. At that meeting he said he objected to the fact that the committee would be moving in camera to deal with the report.

I should point out to you that he actually threatened the committee at that meeting by saying that if we went in camera he had a tape recorder, which he showed the committee, and he would be tape recording the proceedings to release the information in whatever way he chose to release it, notwithstanding the fact that the committee would have ruled in some form of obvious democratic way. That was the kind of intimidation tactic frankly that we were faced with.

The member for Wentworth—Burlington has pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was his suggestion that the minutes of the meeting be made available to the public after the document was completed and reported to this place.

The second point of information that I would leave with you, Mr. Speaker, is that the member has actually admitted that the document he released was not a completed document. In fact, this same member has refused to participate in the amendments at committee to finally get the document to a stage where the committee was ready to pass a motion to present it to the House. We know that with 301 members in this place, not all members are able to serve on every committee. By extension, the committee is therefore required to report to the House before it reports to anyone else. That is understood.

I would also add that if you look in the rules and procedures, which I am sure you do not need to do because you know this, it also says that even if a draft report is written in public session, it is still confidential until it is reported to the House. Mr. Speaker, that is some additional information for you to consider.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of brief points. First, transfer payments are higher now than they were when the Liberals were elected in 1993. I only arrived 1997. They are actually higher. That is a fact. The member can look at the chart.

The other point is the member ignores the fact that the provincial governments have some responsibility in this. They have a responsibility to deliver health care services. What opposition parties would like us to do is either give it all to the provinces or in the case of some members, take it away and let the federal government run all of it.

I do not think either one of those is a satisfactory solution. We have to work with the provinces to deliver better quality health care and not do it at the expense of young Canadians who need our help.