Steve Mahoney

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

That is a wonderful comment. We have a member over there who called a minister of the crown girl yesterday and today called a minister of the crown honey. Now we have a member over there shouting that I am stupid. I suppose many of my teachers would have agreed with that assessment. My mother and dad at times certainly would have agreed with that assessment. My wife who is in the gallery would agree with that assessment on an ongoing basis.

Is that what we are down to? Is that the quality of debate in this place: “You are stupid?” What is going on here? Members will know that there are few in this place who get more passionately partisan than I at times.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

That is a fair comment. I would throw that one right back over there: respect the people. We hear members saying that we only have 38% of the vote. We have 157 of the 301 seats. Whether or not the member likes it, it is called a majority. Whether one uses old math or new math it is called a majority and we are the government. It is not about saying we are the government and we will do what we want. It is about saying we are the government and we have—

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be using the entire 20 minute period. I am sure members opposite will be delighted to hear that.

This is an interesting debate. In some of the speeches people are positioning themselves in one sense to be great defenders of the democratic process in this place. They are saying that they are not attacking you for partisan reasons to perhaps go at the government in a different way. That is what I have been hearing all day. I find that quite remarkable. It is a subterfuge; that is probably the best way I can think of it.

The motion of non-confidence in the Speaker comes from the party that just lost all its amendments in relation to Bill C-20, the clarity bill, and the fact that it is upset about that is probably why we are even having this debate. Mr. Speaker, instead of debating the issue of the status of health care in the country that the fifth party wanted to put forward today on an opposition day, we have found ourselves through negotiations with the House leaders coming to an agreement that we should somehow put that off for a day and debate this motion and talk about how you are doing your job. To then hear people say that it is not partisan makes me laugh. It is clearly and purely partisan beyond a doubt.

In preparing for this job I sat with some excellent Speakers in the provincial legislature. You will, sir, remember Speaker Edighoffer, a fine gentleman who served the province of Ontario in an exceptional way as Speaker. There was Speaker Warner. Speaker Edighoffer was a member of the Liberal caucus when he was elected and then he became Speaker. Of course one must then withdraw from all those caucus and partisan activities, as one should. Speaker Warner was a member of the New Democratic Party when he was elected under Premier Rae. He too withdrew from caucus participation because no Speaker can be involved in even knowing what the government is thinking in terms of the policies or platforms it is going to put forward.

We expect an awful lot of our Speakers in this place and in the provincial legislatures and so we should. I thought about how I could define what it is that we expect of the Speaker. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I did some homework and came up with something which I thought said it all. In 1986 the then Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. John Turner, said:

You know what we demand of you, Mr. Speaker. Perfection! We want fairness, independence, decisiveness, patience, common sense, good humour, upholding the traditions of the House, knowledge of the rules and an intuition for the changing mood and tone of the House as we move through our days.

That is a fair definition of what the House expects of its Speaker.

The other aspect of this is that you, sir, do not make the rules. We do. Through the process that is put in place, the House of Commons sets the rules down. We have a process whereby they are approved by the House of Commons. I know you would agree that in addition to all the issues of fairness, independence, common sense and good humour, that you are in fact a servant of the House of Commons. As a result you have to do a job in as impartial a way as you possibly can and not get caught into any kind of personal partisan feelings that would take away the rights of anyone in a minority position.

The reason I say that is I find it really interesting that members opposite who have spoken here have begun their speeches by saying that the government is heavy handed, that the reason we are having this debate is that we have had too many motions of time allocation and that they do not like the way the government is operating and doing business. Mr. Speaker, what in the world has that to do with you?

I would say it proves to me the point that this is nothing but subterfuge and a way to say that they are mad that they lost a bill, a vote, a motion, 400 amendments or whatever it is. They cannot get at the government any more, and there is an interesting reason for that by the way, so they will attack the Speaker.

One of the Reform members said that the government only got 38% of the vote. When I was elected in 1987 in the David Peterson government that was about the percentage of vote we had in Ontario. When there are five parties it is not the government's fault opposition members cannot get their act together. It is not the government's fault that they do not seem to be able to agree on policies. We have what some refer to as a pizza parliament with five different parties opposite. The standings are that out of 301 seats we have 157 and that is a majority. The next closest party has 58.

I can understand the frustration of the opposition because the mandate was given to us, not by you, Mr. Speaker, not by your office and not by the table officers or the staff. I want to touch on that because not only is this subterfuge of attacking you a way of getting to the government, but what they have actually done by this motion of non-confidence in the Speaker is to attack our staff and our table officers. I find that particularly offensive and absolutely uncalled for.

I must admit I am surprised to see it coming from the Bloc. One of the things I have been impressed with and surprised about in this place is that if we take away the issue of Quebec separatism, the members of the Bloc whom I have worked with on committee are compassionate, caring, hardworking, dedicated members of parliament. In fact I have travelled with some of them to other places in the world. I have not found that they foisted their particular brand of separatism on the people in Strasbourg, France where I attended the Council of Europe. I have found them to be very good MPs who contribute to the process and the work in this place.

The Bloc members in a fit, a temper tantrum, and it can be described as nothing else because they were out of ideas, they were out of tools with which to try to shove wrenches into the machinery of government, said “We cannot get those guys over there, so we had better go after the staff”. How did they do that?

The concern of the member for Rimouski—Mitis was that some 700 motions had been submitted quite properly, although there were two the Bloc claim were never really submitted properly, and they were rejected. There were well over a thousand. We would still be here voting.

I would like somebody in this place, you, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else, to tell me that the Canadian public sent any one of us from any one of the parties her to stand up between 6 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning and then 6 o'clock in the morning to 6 o'clock at night three days running, 24 hours a day, and have our names called to vote on a motion that would change a comma to a semicolon.

That cannot be called democracy. That can have no basis in governing this land. Lord knows it is difficult enough in your job, Mr. Speaker, to try to govern 301 of us who can be unruly because of the partisanship. This is a blood sport and we all know that. This is a tough business. There is some truth in that old saying “If you can make it here you can make it anywhere”.

You have a job that is really a thankless job. You try to keep order, to keep direction and to find ways to ensure that. It is not to direct anyone, not to direct government, not to direct opposition. Members of this place have more freedom than any institution in the world.

Bloc members have said that their privileges have been violated because their amendments were not accepted. There is something that goes with privileges in this country. It is called responsibilities. Bill C-20 has three clauses and is one and a half pages long. I understand their fervour, their passion, their desire to lead their province out of Confederation. All Canadians understand that. They also understand that is a minority position in the province of Quebec today.

All the polls indicate that the desire for and the interest in separatism are at historic lows, but I understand it probably more than I did three years ago when I arrived in this place. As I said before, I respect them for many of the things they do in an effort to be members of this place. However, I would suggest it is not responsible to submit over 1,000 amendments to a three clause bill that is a page and a half long. Most of them, the vast majority of them, were either redundant or simply not substantive.

Without a doubt that is a clear message which says “we cannot win this so how can we make it as uncomfortable as possible”. I do not know what it costs to run this place. In some ways I find that argument irrelevant. We are sent here and if it costs it costs, but it is just such a waste.

We went through it with the Reform Party that took the same approach to the Nisga'a treaty. I understood its passion. It is not your fault, Mr. Speaker, that Reformers had 471 amendments and it is not your fault that they lost them all. Lord knows I have never been terribly supportive of the policies of the Reform Party, but I did not see Reformers pull a tantrum and file a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker just because they lost the 471 amendments. They took their lumps. They went home to western Canada, British Columbia, or wherever they are from, and fought the battle at the local level.

That is what democracy in this place is about. This is an abuse in my view. It is an abuse of you, Sir. It is an abuse of your deputies. It is an abuse of the staff.

There are three types of members in this place. Members opposite might find this hard to believe, but I am actually not a government member in those terms. I am a member in support of the government. There is a difference. Government members are the cabinet. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are indeed the government. The rest of us who were elected as Liberals choose whether or not to be in support of the government. That is the role we play.

We hear members opposite calling for free votes for people in this place, that there are not enough free votes. I have never been involved with a government where there is more opportunity for free votes, more opportunity within the caucus system and within the committee system to make changes.

The democratic process around here frankly is quite remarkable. I say that from the backbenches where some would say on a clear day I might have trouble seeing the Speaker. The reality is that the process is in place for members, and I might add it is in place for members opposite to have input.

It is just past 4 o'clock. I am told that at 3.30 p.m. today a press conference was held in this precinct where the critic for citizenship and immigration released a yet to be finalized and yet to be approved report of the citizenship and immigration committee on the immigration and illegal migrant issue.

I find that incomprehensible and despicable. It shows a lack of respect in you, Sir; a lack of respect in the committee; a lack of respect in the traditions of this place, of every person who has gone before us in this place. He is simply saying he does not like this report. Do you know why? It is because he never showed up at the meetings to help us write it. He released it and accused the committee of not listening to him. It is fundamentally wrong and childish. Yet that is happening.

I hear members stand in their places to talk to you about this issue. They say that things have deteriorated around here. It is quite interesting. We have members in opposition. We have members in support of the government and we have members who are the government. It has always been thus. We all have a role to play.

I served for five years in opposition to what I thought was an arrogant government. I thought it was a government that was not listening, that got in by accident. It was the New Democratic government that was in Ontario for five years. I can remember thinking that if the people had a chance to vote again the morning after the election they would never have put those guys in power. They did not believe that was going to happen.

[Citizenship And Immigration, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario plans to charge a discriminatory $925 tax to Ontarians who wish to adopt foreign orphaned children.

Can the minister confirm that indeed this is true and whether there is any federal government involvement in this plan to tax Ontarians?

[Citizenship And Immigration, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last week I travelled with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the member for Compton—Stanstead to Nairobi, Kenya to meet with staff working with refugees and visa applicants. These people work long and emotionally draining hours. They risk their lives. This is a very dangerous part of the world.

Kate O'Brien interviews refugees in a camp in the Sahara desert. Security requirements are very serious. Kate is at risk every day. Michel Dupuis interviewed one woman who had seen her husband and son murdered and endured two months in prison where she was tortured and raped.

Keith Swinton, Christopher Hazel, Lynda Bowler, Michel Dupuis and Kate O'Brien give hope and new life to people who could well be dead.

Our High Commissioner, Gerry Campbell, leads a team of true heroes along with Bob Orr and Dr. Jeremy Brown. On behalf of all Canadians I want to thank them for their dedication and their bravery.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

The member says no. I heard that. I think they do and they want a clear answer.

My constituents have said to me that if they really want to go, let them go. I want to make sure that the question is darn clear before we are put in the position where we have to negotiate that kind of deal. That is what this bill does.

I am a little frightened because Reform members support it, but I appreciate the fact that they do so because they have listened to their constituents.

The House should pass this bill, and quickly. It should be passed so that we keep this country together and everyone understands the nature of the game.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member should seek an opportunity to rise in debate in a normal way instead of jumping up in such child-like fashion and interrupting the flow of someone who is trying to articulate a point which might be contrary to his and might be somewhat more factual. I am not making it up; I am reading from a document that quotes the supreme court.

If the member does not believe that the supreme court decision I am reading is accurate, the member should say so, I suppose. But I do not know where he would be coming from. What is the point of that debate?

It could only be—and not to be unfair because there is really another party I want to talk about a little more—that the NDP has looked at this and said “Darn it, they really have something here. They will put forward a bill that is clear to Canadians; a question that is clear”.

Most of their ridings are in eastern Canada, in the maritimes. I am sure the people in the maritimes are about as fed up with this talk of separation as are the people of Quebec, Ontario, the west and our territories. I am sure they are all sick and tired of this whole debate and would like, once and for all, to put the rules straight on the table.

The members look at it and say “Holy smoke, they might have something here. They have actually put together a bill which says there has to be a clear question, that the appropriate democratically elected people in the country have to be consulted and there has to be a clear majority”. Frankly, I think that is what the majority of Canadians want, including those people in Quebec.

In an attempt to find a way to oppose this bill, they have latched on to the tried and true aboriginal issue. We saw that in Charlottetown and in Meech. We came to recognize as a nation that if we want to try to amend the constitution, which is exactly what would be required under any attempt by a province to secede, the country is not governable in that sense. To amend the constitution of Canada is virtually impossible, to date at least, with perhaps one or two very minor exceptions to do with education, because any one person, as we saw in the Manitoba legislature, can refuse unanimous consent and hold up the entire country.

Any premier can go back to the legislature of a province promising to hold a vote, renege on that vote, and the whole thing dies.

If a member wants to throw something into the mix, throw in the tried and true aboriginal question and sure enough the process will be derailed.

I do not understand where the responsibility lies for a Canadian parliamentarian to do that. I do not mind that someone disagrees with the bill. In fact I understand the Bloc members disagreeing with it. It is their raison d'être to separate.

I found some of the statements of Bloc members really interesting. Let me share one with the House. One Bloc member said “You cannot judge clarity because there are language differences”. Is that not an interesting situation.

I wrote out what I consider to be, and what I think my constituents would consider to be, a clear question. It is fairly simple and fairly straightforward. It states “Do you wish to separate from Canada and become a sovereign nation, yes or no?”

Here is the question in French: voulez-vous vous séparer du Canada et devenir un pays souverain, oui ou non?

Where is the language difference? Where is the problem?

Members opposite do not like that question. Maybe they want a question that says “Do you want to maybe separate? We will cut a deal. We will see if we can get more money out of them. We will see what we can do better for you because you voted for us. Maybe we will get you some HRD grants, or maybe we will not. What do you think of that, yes or no?”

If they want to play games because they know they cannot win when it is a clear question, I understand that tactic, but I do not think the rest of Canada appreciates that tactic.

Then I heard the same Bloc member say, and I found this to be astounding, that his constituents do not want clarity, they want money. That is what he said. They want money for economic development and jobs. These are the same opposition members who would stand to castigate the Minister of Human Resources Development for investing in the province of Quebec, in the various ridings of members opposite, and ridings right across this country.

Those investments are investments in people, the people of Quebec. The reason the members do not like them of course is because they are afraid those investments might make, God forbid, the country's government look good. That is not the reason it is done. Our policies are very clear. We go into economically depressed communities and we try to help them, because we understand as a government that is part of our obligation.

I do not care what party sits on this side of the House, that will always be, and should always be, part of the obligation of a government which tries to run a nation with the disparities and the geographical differences that exist in this country. Members ought to travel this land, go to places in Quebec and Labrador. Anywhere in this country they will see the need for government assistance.

Finally, I heard a member stand to say that Quebecers were not consulted when other people were allowed to join this country. Presumably the member was referring to Newfoundland. I do not understand that. I say to the member, what about the rest of Canada when it comes to the province of Quebec voting on a referendum question that would indeed destroy this country? Does the ROC, the rest of Canada, not have something to say?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

I am trying to reiterate it fairly and accurately because I want to point out the fallacy of the argument.

The member could not understand and got awfully excited about why we would not include aboriginal Canadians in the list of people who should be consulted. I know the member knows this full well because he is one of the most knowledgeable people in the House. He has been around a long time. I give him credit for his success in this parliament and the length of his stay here, if nothing else. He knows that he could check the supreme court decision with regard to this. I will share this with members opposite.

The final subsection of the bill stipulates that no minister of the crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession expressly mentioned by the court, such as the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province—which the hon. member knows full well deals with aboriginal Canadians—the rights, interests and territorial claims of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

That is in the supreme court decision. I read that and I listened to the knowledgeable member of the New Democratic Party going on about the government not mentioning aboriginal Canadians in the bill. I wonder what has happened. I think I know. That member and members of that party are looking for a reason to oppose this bill. They are digging a little deep. They cannot be kidding—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, appreciate the opportunity to speak at least one last time to this bill. It is a bill which attempts to bring clarity, finally, to an issue that has probably been the most confusing issue for Canadians right across the country, not only in the province of Quebec but certainly in my riding and clearly from sea to sea to sea.

Some of the statements made by members opposite I find rather interesting. First, I heard the hyperbole of the member of the New Democratic Party earlier today. In fact he was quite apoplectic, to say the least, shouting and going on about the fact that aboriginal Canadians are not named in the document—

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am equally sure that this is simply an attempt to stop me from getting my points across. I understand that because they do not like to hear the facts.

What are they opposing? Let me talk about third party spending on elections. We know the Reform Party would love to give a blank cheque to Charlton Heston and the NRA out of Washington, Dallas or wherever to ride into Ottawa on horseback, shooting their pistols in the air, and let them spend whatever they want.

On the other side of the coin I am not sure Reformers would want to see money being allocated to a third party group like the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I suspect they would not want to see that organization being given this kind of power.

What is fair in an electoral process? What is fair is that there are registered parties. There are registered candidates. For all the disagreements we have in this place, I personally have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who stands for elected office for any party at any time. It takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of commitment. It is not just for a Liberal. It takes a lot of courage to run as a Reformer in Canada. Let us imagine running in Ontario as a Reformer. It must be sort of like the appliance guy with the loneliest job in town. They have trouble getting their deposits back.

I respect the fact that the candidate who ran against me for the Reform Party came out more than the Tories did to the all candidate meetings to put forward his viewpoints, his ideas, what he believed in. He is a man in the community. I might even convince him to vote for me one day. I suspect he votes for my wife because he lives in her municipal riding, so he has some common sense.

Why should someone with an axe to grind, a third party that does not have the commitment or dedication, be allowed to have blank cheque to influence the outcome of the election or to be manipulated perhaps by a party that knows it does not have support in a certain region, whether it is Atlantic Canada, Ontario or the province of Quebec? Maybe they want to manipulate the voters through advertising. Does that work? I ask members to use the analogy of why tobacco companies advertise to try attract young smokers to their products. It is because it works. The reality is that advertising in politics works as well.

It is a very serious issue. It is not like we are saying they cannot have a say. They can spend up to $150,000 across the nation. I do not think that is unreasonable. They can put their viewpoints across. They can attend all-candidate meetings. They can go to the candidate of any party they want and demand that the person explain why he or she believes in whatever the issue happens to be. This is the democratic process. This is not a government and this is not a country that will tolerate the ability of any special interest group to hijack the agenda during an election campaign. That is very important.

I want to deal with another issue that members talked about, the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer. Let us be clear. In this case a resolution is required of the House, not of the Senate, to approve that.

There is much about democracy in the bill. If the opposition thinks it is democratic for us to be sitting here tonight voting on 67 nonsensical amendments which they want to put forward, keeping members of parliament in this place until two or three o'clock in the morning, I do not call that productive. I call that destructive democracy. It will not improve the bill and they know it.

They have had every opportunity to have their oar in the water. We should support the bill. We should pass the bill. We should stop the silly political games that are being played opposite.