Steve Mahoney

[Reform Party, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what is in a name? In the case of the united Reform led alternative, I have some suggestions for them to name the new party.

How about Reform-R-Us-Eh? Given that they behave like little children I think it works. Or it could read Reform-R-U.S.A., given their preference for American style government. Or how about Tor-E-Form or Lack-of-Form, or No-Form-At-All. Take your pick.

Given the pain most Canadians feel in their backs over this embarrassment, how about Con-Form since the whole thing is a con job designed to prop up the Reform Party. Or how about Obus-Form so that once and for all we can relieve Canadians of their lower back pain caused by these people, who, let us face it, cannot unite the right, cannot unite their own caucus, and certainly could not unite this country, no matter what they call their party.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I know that is the strategy of the Reform Party and that is fine if members want to continue to interrupt me because I will get the point across. The point is that what the Reform members are doing in terms of trying to gum up the wheels of government is, frankly, irresponsible. If they would just admit that there is nothing that could satisfy their concerns because they have failed to put those concerns on the record in this place. They stand and talk about the potential impact to our charter. They say it is creating some new level of government. What they do not say is that the Reform Party is inextricably opposed to self-government and self-determination by aboriginal Canadians. It is absolutely the case. They will not say it but that is fundamentally what they are opposed to.

The bill has had provincial hearings and community hearings. We have had federal negotiators who have met for countless hours. We all know it has been an issue for in excess of 100 years. We all know that the Nisga'a people have attempted to negotiate with the province of British Columbia and the country of Canada and in the past they have failed, so what do we do? Do we simply ignore the injustices? Do we simply ignore the heritage of the Nisga'a people in British Columbia, or do we try to move ahead incrementally and put in place a bill and a treaty that will bring some justice to them?

Reform Party members can be obstructionist if they want to. It is unfortunate that this issue has come down to a debate between our philosophy and theirs when in fact what we should be dealing with are the real issues.

When I talk about frivolous or even potentially dangerous amendments, let me give an example of one that the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has put forward. Clause 5 of Bill C-9 states, “The Nisga'a final agreement is binding on, and can be relied on by all persons”. The amendment being put forward by the member would delete the words “and can be relied on by”. Therefore the clause would read, “the Nisga'a final agreement is binding on all persons”. The Reformers would delete the words, “and can be relied on by all persons”. Why would they want to do that? What is the impact of that?

Let me give an example. During the negotiations the federal negotiator met with a number of third parties to this particular agreement. Those third parties are companies in forestry, mining, fishing, other resource sectors, utility companies, other business interests, environmental groups, local government, Nass Valley residents who are not part of the Nisga'a people and many other groups with legal interests in this particular agreement. The Reform Party amendment would take away any opportunity for any of those groups to be able to challenge anything within the agreement, perhaps in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, or the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would the Reform Party do that?

Members of the Reform Party stand in this place and say that the rights and the protection of women is not in the Nisga'a agreement. The minister has stood in his place as early as today in question period and clearly stated—I do not know why they cannot grasp this concept—that the rights of Nisga'a women will be protected under provincial laws, the same way as all women in British Columbia and Canada enjoy protection. Why does the Reform Party need to have it specifically addressed in the agreement?

When we put a clause in the bill that says that they can rely on this agreement, by deleting that, if we want to set women up as a specific group, then we are saying that women will not be able to rely on this particular agreement. The forest industry, or the mining industry, or the other groups I have talked about will not be able to rely on it. We have to ask ourselves whether Reform's researchers do not understand the impact because words in this place are so all important.

Words set the future course for the government. Words tell Canadians what the government feels and what the opposition feels. By deleting those few little words in that agreement, we are potentially taking away the rights of so many groups who perhaps are not specifically mentioned in the Nisga'a agreement but who have a substantial interest.

I have another example. This agreement gives Canadians the right to reasonable access to Nisga'a lands. Would the Reform Party's amendment deny that?

In my own province of Ontario, in a place just north of Parry Sound, there was a dispute where the native community blockaded a road and would not allow access to cottagers, who had historic access, to their lakes. If we were to follow and extrapolate the views of the Reform Party, they would lose any protection should that situation occur under the Nisga'a agreement simply because Reform put an amendment that said that those cottagers, to use that example, could not rely on the agreement. They could not rely on their rights as Canadians to cross that particular barricade to access lands that perhaps will be isolated as a result of the redrawing of boundaries through this agreement.

I know many members of the Reform Party. I work with them in committee, whether it is on citizenship and immigration or public accounts. I see the esteemed chair of our public accounts committee in this room and welcome him back after his trials with health problems. We are delighted to see him here. There is a reasonable individual, and there are others over there. Do they not see that by deleting those little words it would take away the rights of all Canadians, interest groups, environmental groups and women to enjoy the access to and benefits of this particular agreement? I think it is a mistake. I can only assume Reformers do not understand it, but it is rather tragic that we have got to this point.

Let me just read another clause, which states:

The Nisga'a Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Nisga'a Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Are members suggesting that there is something wrong with that? We are saying that in return for granting new rights and a new treaty to the Nisga'a people, we are asking that everybody else who could be impacted on in any way whatsoever be relieved of that implication. This agreement is historical. It is a travesty that Reformers are throwing out absolutely false information. They should simply support this agreement and let the Nisga'a people enjoy the many benefits that come with it.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that I think are fairly key in this debate over this historic treaty.

I am a Canadian from the city of Mississauga in Ontario. People might wonder what interest I could have in a treaty with aboriginal people on the west coast. I think there are some things happening here both as to how this place functions and the significance of the negotiations with the Nisga'a that should concern all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.

I understand that there is no possible way, there are no circumstances, there is no opportunity for us to satisfy the concerns of the official opposition. If there were, we would not be facing some 500 amendments to the bill after it has gone through the extensive process that it has gone through. One would think that a parliamentarian could go through committee, could go through negotiations, could discuss within this place the issues of concern and come to some understanding of it. While the opposition says that the government is unwilling to accept amendments, it continues to put what I think the Canadian people would consider to be either frivolous or dangerous amendments to this legislation.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points with particular regard to the comments by the hon. member who just spoke in support of her private members' bill.

First of all, I would take some exception that this is about having or not having a social conscience. Frankly, this is very clearly an issue about labour relations. To suggest that because a member on this side of the House, or of another party, does not support this means that somehow we do not have a social conscience is not an acceptable remark.

This is clearly about the relationship between Canada and the provinces. The Minister of Labour in the province of Quebec has introduced a bill that this one mirrors. In fact, this one is drawn primarily from that bill. It is Bill 67 in the province of Quebec. I understand the minister in that province held a number of public consultations where people, including young people, gave their advice and opinions on this bill.

The minister has admitted that she was unable to arrive at a consensus within her own province of Quebec, yet she is going ahead with introducing it into the national assembly. I presume that is because there are fundamentally only two parties of strength in the legislature and it will carry. I assume that Mr. Bouchard's government will pass this into law. This is a provincial labour issue they are dealing with and they have every right to do that within the rights and the boundaries of their particular jurisdiction.

I find it strange though that a member of the Bloc would stand and say that because this is good for her province that this should necessarily expand to be good for all Canadians. It is quite an unusual day to see a separatist defending anything outside the borders of the province of Quebec. I have some difficulty with the rationale that somehow this should be good for all of Canada. In fact, this is gerrymandering and political manipulation with the socialists who are obviously chirping away and who are obviously in bed with the separatists. So we have the socialists and the separatists, the separatists and the socialists, together once again. Philosophically I understand that. I know where they come from. They believe that all the collective bargaining and contracts should be done by mother state as opposed to allowing the collective bargaining process to work.

That is fundamentally the difference of philosophy between this side, the government, the NDP, and in this case the Bloc. The Bloc members are fundamentally socialists.

I will talk about my dad who the member went on about. My father, when he was national director of the United Steelworkers of America, in all of Canada by the way, negotiated an agreement with Inco in Sudbury. He negotiated a seven year collective bargaining agreement, the longest collective bargaining agreement in history. That agreement put into place the protections that were necessary for the employees of the day and for new hires who came along as the seven year process expanded.

I wonder what people like Bill Mahoney or Larry Sefton would say about the parliament of Canada telling the unions and the union leaders, who are duly elected by the rank and file of their union, who have a mandate given to them by the men and women who are in that union, what they should do to protect the men and women in their union. Not only people like my father and Larry Sefton, but I think of old time, hard working union leaders like Joe Morris, Dennis McDermott and Johnny Barker from Sault Ste. Marie, who had a great saying. The socialists will love this. Johnny used to say, “Don't let your bleeding heart run away with your bloody head”. I always thought it was a classic. Johnny understood that if there was not a plant in Sault Ste. Marie that was functioning and creating steel products, there would not be jobs for the members. Johnny understood that this was not a sector of society where the government should be sticking its palmy, greedy little fingers. Allow the union leaders and the executives who work in the industrial part of this country to come together and to work out agreements that make sense.

While I am on that subject, the labour movement is big business. We think about it in terms of being a union. Let me tell the members it is big business.

When I was 16 years old I drove the getaway car for my dad when we went to Sudbury with the steelworkers leading the raid on mine mill. Why? We wanted to get the communists the heck out of the labour movement. There were too many of them infiltrated in the mine mill and we wanted to get them out. We needed a getaway driver because it was dangerous stuff.

It was scary stuff. They attempted to assassinate him on a couple of occasions. There were brawls in the hall of the President Hotel in Sudbury. There were police in the streets. It was violent stuff, and I did not understand. I said “Dad, what the heck are you doing this for?” I did not understand what he was doing. I thought this was a lot of scary stuff and I would rather be back home in Toronto, in Etobicoke, in my comfortable home than up here with all these tough mine workers and steel workers and all the fighting and everything else.

Do the hon. members know what it was about? It was about money. Let me tell the members why. I did not know it then, but the mine mill people were paying monthly dues into their union and so were the steelworkers. We had two unions, both negotiating directly with the company in Sudbury. They were negotiating. One would get a deal, then the other one would come in and say “I want a better deal” and the other one would come in and say “I want to one-up those guys”. There were conflicts. There were more fights between the unions in Sudbury in those days than there ever were between the company and the union.

It is really interesting to hear the NDP members going on. They have no understanding of the relationship, the positive, the pragmatic relationship that could be developed between a pragmatic labour leader representing the constituents, not walking around saying “I am vice-president of the New Democratic Party. Hear me roar”. What a bunch of nonsense.

NDP members should ask themselves a question. If all people in the labour movement are socialist, how come those guys never get any votes? How come the New Democratic Party does not form a government? How do we elect federal Liberals in Sault Ste. Marie and Oshawa? How do we do that? How do we elect, God forbid, provincial Tories in places like that?

The NDP have to get elected somewhere. NDP members have to get a job somewhere. I understand that. We know that they are in trouble. They have gone from two, and what are they up to, half a dozen or a dozen or whatever it is. Joe who? Joe what?

It is really an interesting thing. Why is it that the people in the labour movement in Windsor—think about it, Windsor—why do they not elect New Democratic Party members? I do not know. They have even tried getting together to do strategic voting and they get thrown out of office. Maybe they should understand that the men and women who work in the industrial heartland of this country have the same problems that we all have. They want to put their kids through school. Their VISA bill is about to explode. Christmas is coming and they have to find the money to buy gifts for their families.

They are concerned about their future. They are concerned about their pensions. They are not concerned about political manipulating and gerrymandering by any level of government to interfere in what is a true, great democratic process in this country called collective bargaining. It works. We should support collective bargaining and we should stick to what we need to do as a government which, I would say to the hon. member opposite, is to keep this country united as the greatest country in the world in which to live.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was not sure if the member was going into a speech or was asking a question. I will try to answer if I can. I would have to look at those recommendations in some detail and would be pleased to do so.

She talked about the closing of police stations in her community and the impact that that can have. I understand that because we have gone through it as well. What our police force has done is gone to a more community based policing. We are trying to get officers into the communities, the malls, the plazas and the schools, which fits right in with the comments that I made.

Not having seen the report she is referring to, I may not have answered the member's question. I do think that policing is about the entire community working together and understanding the dynamics and the problems that occur when young people do not have an opportunity to interact properly with the police force and the community.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I want to begin by offering congratulations to the Bloc and to the member for Berthier—Montcalm for putting forward a motion which finally, on an opposition day, the government can support. What a treat. This has been done in a responsible way, which uses the parliamentary system to its best effect.

The motion asks that the House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct an investigation. There might be some concern about committee members being instructed, but I am quite sure they will look at this as the will of parliament to conduct a study and report by the end of October 2000. That is a reasonable timeframe, which will give the better part of a year to hear witnesses, to perhaps travel on the issue, to conduct the investigation and to report.

I wonder what this motion would look like if it was put by the Reform Party. I strongly suspect it would be framed in such a way that it would make it impossible for any of us to support it. They would use terms like the government has abdicated its responsibility and so on and, therefore, we should do this study.

I want to give credit where credit is due because I have stood in the House and been somewhat critical of members of the Bloc in the past. I think what they are putting forward is a responsible position. I know that they come to this issue with some serious deep seated concern in the province of Quebec.

We have all heard stories of the biker gang wars in Quebec. There have been murders. There is drug trafficking. They take over homes and destroy neighbourhoods. They threaten people going to the corner store, for goodness sake, to get a jug of milk. Women and children do not feel safe in communities when that type of local terrorism, which is really what that amounts to, is allowed.

I think the Bloc comes to this issue with a point of view of perhaps some negative experience in this area and the problems around organized crime.

I want to come at this a little differently, though. I believe that the long term, big picture way for us to attack organized crime, frankly, is to deal with our kids, our education system and our families. We have to work harder at eradicating poverty. I know there will be some who will say that we have not done enough. However, as we on this side of the House know, the government is committed to coming in with some programs that will deal with child poverty in the upcoming February budget. I am confident that there will be programs.

The reason I think one fights something as insidious as organized crime by dealing with our young people is because the very nature of an organized criminal group is they look for people who are vulnerable. They look for people who are impressionable. They look for people, whether it is in illegal gambling, whether it is in drugs, whether they get young girls who are impressionable and lead them astray and get them involved in prostitution with promises of great money and beautiful clothes and things of that nature, or they get young people out of schools involved in selling drugs in the community, they encourage them through establishing a mindset that says it is cool to be part of an organized group.

One thinks about the gangs and the problems that we see. We had a terrible tragedy in the greater Toronto area a couple of weeks ago when a young boy was kicked to death by a gang of young people. It is incomprehensible. What could possibly make these young people react like that? Tragically, we have seen it in the past. A young girl was kicked, bludgeoned and beaten to death by other young girls. Violence in the female education system for young girls, in my opinion, is becoming a crisis.

We can put in place all the RCMP and all the police assistance that we want in communities, but we must address the basic fundamental attitudes of young people and tell them that they have to respect one another.

Yesterday, I was at Ploughman's school in Mississauga speaking to four grade five classrooms. They got together in the library. I was amazed to hear the questions coming from these young kids in grades 4 and 5, asking me about the problems of violence in the schools and what the government can do to combat it. They do not feel safe in their own community; a community full of families, young people raising their families. Kids at that tender age worry about this. I am sure they hear their moms and dads talking about it around the kitchen table. They do not understand how somebody who is perhaps 10 years older than them can actually go to the extreme of kicking someone to death.

We can put something in place. In fact this government has done a number of things which I would share with the House from a crime fighting standpoint.

I want to stress that I do not think that this debate is about the government standing up and strutting its stuff, saying “We're really tough on this issue”. Nor is it about the opposition standing up and saying “You're not tough enough”. What this debate should be about, in my respectful submission, is how we build and create a safer community. How do we get the drug lords? How do we get the smugglers, whether they are smuggling cigarettes or guns? I know it is a controversial issue with some members on the other side, but it is about issues such as gun control.

What is the basic, fundamental principle in the values of Canada and Canadians? Do we simply want to be like the Americans? Do we simply want to pander to the gun lobby group, or do we want to put in place laws? Yes, they will be difficult to enforce. Do we want to put in place a registry? Yes, and it will be difficult. The criminals obviously are not going to register their guns. We understand that, but we have seen so many tragedies in this country.

I believe that the insidiousness of organized crime just sits there and stirs the pot. The way for us to combat that, in addition to the many programs that have already been announced, is to get to the hearts of our young people. I hope that members opposite will see this as I do, and as many Canadians do, as an issue that we all need to work on together.

This is not just about giving the Mounties more money. In fact, in my own community at Pearson International Airport the GTAA has entered into an agreement with Peel Regional Police to provide policing services to Pearson airport so that the RCMP can free up more of its contingent to deal with the serious problems that occur at such a major international entry point to this country. That is a good, responsible, community partnership. That makes a lot of sense.

Peel Region is where the airport is located. The Peel Regional Police wind up with many of the problems once they leave the airport grounds. They wind up with the problems. Whether it is organized crime or crime of any kind, Peel Regional Police will have to deal with it. Why not have them at the point of entry dealing with it immediately and put in place the systems and understanding of the flow that occurs when criminals come in?

On the other side of that coin, at a time when all governments are facing great financial pressures, it frees up an opportunity for the RCMP to concentrate on crimes that are perhaps more of an international nature, such as smuggling.

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have one minute remaining. I wanted to talk about the people smuggling that we have seen recently, but I am not going to have time to do that.

Let me just say that it is important that we focus our energies in the area where in a long term, big picture way we can actually eradicate organized crime. We can convince our young people in our schools and communities that it is not an acceptable way and that they must respect their colleagues, their friends and their schoolmates. They must not turn to violence as a way of solving a problem. It is easy to say those things, but it is places like this, with responsible motions such as this one being put forward by the opposition with an opportunity to debate it, where this kind of issue can begin to be solved.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. Clearly the Reform members have a hidden agenda. Instead of putting the issues out on the table and telling us what they believe in and what they stand for, they filibuster. There is a lot of hot air. There is nothing of substance in their debate. I say tragically so, because they have an obligation as members of an opposition party to put the issues on the table and to have a debate of substance. It is unfortunate that they have not got a clue how to do that.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would conclude by saying that there is a difference between voting with all of the facts on the table and voting while trying to skewer the reality of what is in the treaty. Just be honest, tell the people the truth and in my view they will support this.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is the difference. I gave some of the quotes. Unless the Reformers are prepared to stand up and denounce Bill Vander Zalm as being inaccurate or not portraying the truth in this matter, when we look at some of the things that he says, he is not putting it in a truthful way. He pretends that it is a $487 million payout plus 2,000 square kilometres of land when the truth is that it is half and half. It is $487 million including the 2,000 square kilometres of land. Something can be twisted around.

I say to Mr. Vander Zalm, I say it to the members of the Reform Party here, and more important, I say it to Canadians, look at the truth of this agreement. It is absolutely unprecedented. It is fair. It gives the Nisga'a people a chance to build on their heritage and to create something for their families in the future.

We are not hearing the facts put out by these—

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would question the definition of Liberal in British Columbia. Having said that, I have a lot of friends, people I have known over the years in that party. In fact my former executive assistant when I was on the city of Mississauga council is now an executive assistant to the leader. I am a bit in touch with that party. Frankly I do not agree with its position.

We do not get up every day, contrary to what the opposition might try to paint, and say, “I am a Liberal and I am going to do this by rote”. We have to have some people who think and disagree. We have it in our own caucus, contrary to the opinions of members opposite.

I guess Mr. Campbell is the leader of the opposition and has to fight the Government of British Columbia any way he can. If the only reason for opposing is to oppose, then I do not think that is effective opposition. Tell us what the problems are with this treaty instead of hiding behind the falsehood of a referendum.