Steve Mahoney

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

“Selective amnesia” my little short friend says. I like that.

We are going to Seattle in the hopes that we can negotiate liberalization in trade and protect the things that are important to Canadians. We believe we have an opportunity in Seattle to expand marketplaces for the agricultural sector.

We are already leaders, and members opposite know this. The NDP members may not be willing to admit it, but they know for a fact that we are already leaders in fields such as telemedicine and education services. Our ability to expand clearly depends on our ability to negotiate in these marketplaces. We want to use these negotiations and we are not afraid to do that. That is the fundamental difference. We go in with some confidence.

I want to tell members a story about a trip I took with the former minister for international trade, the hon. Sergio Marchi. He led a team Canada trade mission to San Francisco and I was honoured to be able to go. It was with young entrepreneurs. We saw some things.

I do not know how many members get the opportunity to go to a movie but I certainly do not often get a chance. However, I did see the IMAX technology when I was in San Francisco. The IMAX technology, which is a theatre in the round, is Canadian. It is spectacular technology.

We were in Silicon Valley in a complex in San Jose where there were thousands of people coming and going and looking at all the exhibits. Many of them were going in to watch the movie,

The Story of Everest

, about a group climbing Mount Everest. It was the most incredible sensation I have ever experienced in a movie theatre. It was in the round. The thing that was wrong with it was that it should have had a little Canadian flag on the bottom. IMAX is one of the most successful technologies and it is Canadian. It was invented by Canadians in Canada and is exported around the world.

Is that a bad thing? Is that not what our future depends on?

We were then taken to a site visit of the Alameda Naval Air Base, which is right on the bay in the San Francisco Bay area. There is a huge area right at the edge of the ocean that was a landfill site. It was far from sanitary. It was a place where we had to sign a waver because there was live ammunition around. I said, “You mean we are really going there? I am not sure I like this idea.”

They took us out and showed us the technology being employed in San Francisco to clean up this toxic and extremely dangerous naval dump site. Guess what? The technology was from Waterloo, Ontario. A Canadian company was the lead winner on the bid. We are talking about a contract that was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up and stop all of the leachate going into the ocean and to eventually make the naval base into a park. There were seven companies involved in this environmental clean up project and six of them were Canadian. The main one was a Canadian firm that had invented the technology. The seventh one was a U.S. firm and its job was to truck things away. What we are talking about is the ingenuity of Canadian firms in developing environmental technologies that can clean up some of the dirtiest messes and the biggest problems in all of the world and it is Canadian.

Why not have a resolution on the floor today to say how proud we are of those Canadian industries that have invented new technologies, that have found ways to help internationally around the world and that are generating jobs. All of the money comes back to Canada on that project and the men and women who are working on that project are Canadian men and women working with Canadian technology.

I do not understand. Instead of saying “Oh, goodness, do not go to Seattle because they are going to beat you up, or if you are going to go here is the set of rules we want”, why not celebrate the success of Canadians around the world?

I have a couple of facts for the New Democratic Party. Two out of every three jobs in the country depend on trade. Exports are more than 40% of our GDP, more than any other G-7 country. Imports give consumers a wider choice and access to the best products in the world. In 1998, Canada exported $367 billion in goods and services and each billion dollar export sustains 11,000 jobs. Those are outstanding numbers.

This is a nation of traders who can and will compete internationally around the world. We will successfully negotiate and improve our position at the WTO talks in Seattle led by our minister and our team of professionals. I have confidence in them and I have confidence in Canadians.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

The member knows I cannot name him. The Speaker will rise and make me be quiet. I am not finished yet, but I may come over and talk about those fellows in a moment.

We have to wonder when we see the Leader of the Opposition stand up and demand more money for farmers. Our Deputy Prime Minister stood up, I think last Friday, and responded to a question from the agricultural critic. He said that he was astounded to hear the critic demanding more help for farmers. By the way, today this government's Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced additional funding of $200 million. We are not ignoring the plight of the farmers in Saskatchewan or anywhere else in the country.

They seem to be doing a complete about-face. All of a sudden, they are pretending that somehow they are the champions of the farmers, that they are going to beat the government up and force it to give money out to subsidize farmers even though that was not what their policy stated. However, that does not surprise me because quite often they will do and say things that do not fit within their policies.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

They do not trust Liberals because they have no confidence in themselves. Before we can trust anyone, we have to be able to look in the mirror and say “I trust that person in the mirror is going to do the right thing”. We have to be able to look at our children and say “I trust my sons and daughters to succeed in the world. I trust them to work hard. I trust Canadians”. That is not what I hear those members saying. They are so myopic. They are living in the 1950s.

The Berlin Wall has already fallen, but the NDP members want to build another one. They want to build some kind of a socialist wall around this great country and tell Canadians that they know best what the rules are. They are just going to walk into Seattle and say “You guys listen up. We are from Canada and you are going to do it our way”.

This is a sophisticated world we live in. I think everyone will agree that the socialists have fallen all over the world. There are the remnants, those who call themselves socialists or labour politicians like the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, who we can hardly call a socialist. I believe he has cut welfare rates faster than Mike the knife in Ontario.

The premier of Saskatchewan was in this place last week. I am not so sure that purebred New Democrats, if there is such a thing, would really call him a socialist. He is a little more to the right of where some of them find themselves on a daily basis.

Let me speak to the issue of the World Trade Organization and why we are going to Seattle. Unlike the NDP members who simply say that we should shut down any opportunities in the agricultural sector, we want to expand agricultural opportunities in export. Why not find them other markets? What a unique idea.

Do not worry, I am getting the Reform members. I know they are feeling left out. The members of the Reform Party are the extreme of this issue. We have the closed-minded, myopic people on the left and then we have the Reform members who would take out some white-out or a big eraser and eliminate the 49th parallel. They would say that the best way to deal with free trade is to become Americans. That is their basic policy.

I find it fascinating that we saw the Reform Party leader stand in this place over the last couple of days in some kind of a tirade about defending agriculture. Let me share a couple of things that particular gentleman said. I do not want them to get too upset, but this is right out of

Hansard . This is not me interpreting something that the Leader of the Reform Party said. I assume we all accept the validity of Hansard

Spending more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any industry's problem. In contrast, Reformers continue to call for reduced federal expenditures. Reformers on the other hand call for a phased clear-cut reduction in the dependence of the agricultural sector on both levels of government.

This was said by the Leader of the Reform on May 10, 1994.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

I hear the Tories chirping over there. I remember Brian Mulroney standing arm in arm with the president of the United States signing “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”. With a name like Mahoney far be it from me to take on an Irishman, but I should add that we were not prepared and will never be prepared to simply climb into bed with an elephant like the United States. That is why we need the Seattle negotiations.

That is what the Tories did under the former prime minister and it led to a $42 billion deficit. What happened then?

We came into office in 1993. I was not here. I was elsewhere. But the government changed hands. The Liberals came in and we negotiated a trade deal in Chile. We negotiated trade deals in other parts of the Americas. We negotiated trade deals in Asia. We sent team Canada to Japan and all over the world. We showed Canadians and more important we showed the world that we are a nation of traders, going right back to the roots of aboriginal Canadians who were the first traders.

Port Credit is at the foot of Highway 10 in my constituency. It is named that because the aboriginals used to trade, and nobody had any money in those days, so they would simply trade back and forth and barter for credit, for goods or that type of thing. We are carrying on the tradition of the founders of this nation, the aboriginal Canadians, who were the first entrepreneurs and the first free traders in North America.

Members opposite say that with the policies the government has put in place with regard to international trade, globalization, world trade organizations, FTA, Chile and all of the agreements, we are being overzealous. I understand where they are coming from. It is a lack of self-confidence.

It is a problem that has been in the rank and file of the New Democratic Party since the days when my father was trying to get them to have a little more common sense about their policies and what they should be doing. He understood. I can remember Bill Mahoney saying to me that we have no problem with the NDP as long as it is not in government. This was the leader of the United Steelworkers of America. He said to leave them in opposition because they are not bad if they stand up and just chirp a bit and effect some social policy. Give them credit where credit is due, but for goodness sake do not give them the reins of power.

The proof of the wisdom of those words came through in 1990 when the people of Ontario decided through a mistake of some kind to elect Bob Rae. We all remember what happened. A province that was firing on all engines went into the worst recession since the Great Depression. A New Democratic Party premier intentionally decided to run $10 billion overdrafts. Imagine. It was almost as bad as Mulroney and the Tories. Actually, they were a little worse. Let me give the numbers.

The way government financing works is that deficits get piled on top of the debt at the end of the fiscal year. It is the same as a family that uses an overdraft to buy food and then piles the overdraft on top of the mortgage. Eventually the mortgage outstrips the value of the home.

Mr. Rae and the New Democrats had a great celebration. Remember the fanfare when they came in? Boy, they opened the doors to the world and it was going to be so wonderful. They took the debt of the province in five years from $39 billion to well over $100 billion. That province is choked with the burden that was put on it with the myopic, single minded, narrow lack of vision led and funnelled by the New Democratic Party policies that are developed at their conferences.

Members of the NDP get together, slap each other on the back and say “We are the social conscience of the world. We know what is best for Canadians. We should never trust the people in the streets to actually do things on their own. We have to do it all for them”.

That is the New Democrat policy. That is where the genesis of this resolution before us today comes from. The members of the New Democratic Party do not trust Canadians to be able to compete in the international global marketplace.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

They don't think. In all honesty, what do they think has contributed to the dynamic growth in this country since the early 1990s, specifically since 1993? Globalization and—

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this motion. This motion really sets apart the ideology of the socialists and shows Canadians that they are living in the past. They do not understand the importance of international trade and the relationships and hard work that our minister, our parliamentary secretary and our entire team will be undertaking when they attend the meeting in Seattle.

I will point out some of the anomalies, to be kind, that exist in the motion. It states that we should not negotiate any further liberalization of trade or investment at the Seattle meeting of the WTO or the free trade area of the Americas without first securing enforceable international rules on core labour standards, environmental protection, cultural diversity, the preservation of public health care and public education. Are those not the issues among others that we are going to Seattle to discuss? Of course they are. I almost find the motion contradictory. It is saying not to negotiate any further trade deals until we get all of this in place.

Do NDP members think that Canada can simply walk into a world trading organization and simply demand that it do this and to do that or we are going to take our ball and go home? They shake their heads but that is clearly how they think negotiations should take place.

The language is quite interesting. The motion states that the government should take action to remedy its overzealous and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization. What do they think?

[Beverage Containers Act, November 2nd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act respecting beverage containers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would ensure that all beverages sold in Canada are sold in bottles upon which a deposit would be chargeable. It may be that the amount of the deposit would differ from some of the existing programs, such as those found in the breweries of Canada, but the principle is very important to ensure that we help the environment by having all of these bottles and containers returned for deposit.

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

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke. He made a lot of sense. He is obviously well versed on the issues, not just those that surround this treaty but I think all issues as they affect aboriginal Canadians. I was particularly struck by the comments which had to do with the attempts to change direction or perhaps interpret things differently.

I am going to attempt a difficult thing for me. I am going to attempt to keep the debate at a reasonably low level because the facts are extremely important. Although we heard it from the hon. member, we do not hear in debate from the opposition, from the Reform Party, the actual facts about what this is about and the consultation process that has taken place.

I did not hear anyone in the Reform Party say that it was somewhere around 1887 when the leaders of the Nisga'a nation made their first trip to the legislature in British Columbia to talk about this treaty. Reform Party members talk about lack of consultation. This has been kicking around for over 100 years.

In fact the formal consultations from the government's perspective started approximately in 1990. That is when a number of committees were established to deal with all the different issues, whether it was hunting, fishing, logging or access to minerals and resources below the ground and all of those issues which are extremely important to the future economy of this group of Canadians.

I was here on Friday during the debate on authorizing the finance committee to travel. The opposition was leading what I would describe as a filibuster. Having been in opposition I respect the rights of opposition members to use whatever tactics they feel are appropriate, but their reason for attempting to stop the finance committee from travelling was that they felt it was important that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel.

I respect that attempt at leverage. It is one of the few things an opposition party can do. Even though I did not particularly like some of the debate, I understand in this place that the minority in dealing with a majority government has to use certain tactics in an attempt to bring about change.

As a result I am astounded that no one from the Reform Party has risen here to thank the government for the motion that was passed earlier today. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is authorized to travel to Victoria, Vancouver, Terrace, Prince George and Smithers, British Columbia during the week of November 14 to 20 to hold hearings with regard to the treaty.

I am sure it is an oversight. I am sure in their eagerness to prepare for question period and this ongoing debate they probably just assumed that one of their other caucus colleagues would stand to thank the government for doing that. In effect that is what is happening. I would have thought they would be in a congratulatory mood because of that opportunity.

It will be very interesting to see what happens at those hearings. I am sure they are already busy attempting to derail or create some kind of protest at the hearings. I am sure they are already in touch with Gordon Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, whom they love to quote, in an attempt to put a certain viewpoint across.

The process is not what bothers me. That is quite a legitimate process in the greatest democracy in the world. It is quite legitimate for an opposition party or someone opposed to something the government is doing for them to do that. The question is, are they going to put the facts on the table?

The Reform Party is the only party in this place opposed to the treaty. Many members of the Reform Party represent ridings in British Columbia and other parts of western Canada. I do not believe they have a member east of Manitoba but I stand to be corrected. And I do not think they have any in Quebec or the maritimes. The Reform members represent that part of Canada. They have a real vested interest. What is it they object to?

Could it be that they object that the Nisga'a, under a general provision in the treaty, will continue to be an aboriginal people under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982? Do they object to that? Would they like to eliminate the Nisga'a people, the Nisga'a culture, heritage and language? I cannot imagine political representatives saying they would want to eliminate a people.

I say to my friends in the Bloc that I get a little nervous when they stand and speak in support of this bill. I suspect they believe what the Reform Party has said, that this could somehow be interpreted as a template for separation. I get a little nervous about the support of the Bloc Quebecois for the bill when they use that particular rationale.

I do not know if the issue is that the Reform Party does not like the fact that Nisga'a will continue to be a people under the constitution act or that the Nisga'a will continue to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other Canadian citizens. Does the Reform Party object to that? We heard the previous speaker quote right from the treaty wherein it says that the constitution of the country applies. The Nisga'a will have the same rights as other Canadian citizens. Would someone from that party please rise in his or her place and say that they do not agree with that if in fact that is true? Do they object? I find this incredible.

Under general provisions lands owned by the Nisga'a will no longer be reserve lands under the Indian Act. One of the fallouts of that is that it means the Nisga'a nation will become taxpayers just like everyone else. Do Reform members object to that? It would astound me to hear that is the case. However it is there. It is in the general provisions.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply. I have heard instances in this place of members of that party standing and saying that if they do not like something the notwithstanding clause should be invoked and to heck with the charter of rights.

I have heard members opposite speak about scrapping the charter of rights. The charter of rights is a difficult document to manage within a democratic country like ours, but we must think of the price we would pay without one. We must think of the price we would pay when an individual government is able to do as it pleases, ignoring something like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Do they object to the Nisga'a nation having full protection and access under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I would like one of those members to tell us if that is it.

As most of the agenda of that group tends to deal with crime, they have said there will be a problem in this area. Yet federal and provincial laws such as the Criminal Code of Canada will continue to apply to Nisga'a citizens and others on Nisga'a lands.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police currently has a detachment in the Nisga'a community of New Aiyansh. It will continue to have an RCMP detachment there once the treaty takes effect. Nothing in the treaty prevents the Mounties or the provincial police from enforcing federal and provincial laws on Nisga'a land. That is a fact. That is the truth. They should not attempt to misrepresent that. The Nisga'a will have no authority over criminal law and the criminal code will continue to apply to everyone.

I ask my hon. friends to stand in their places to tell Canadians, British Columbians and the Nisga'a people what exactly it is that they object to with a landmark treaty such as this one.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons respecting proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to Standing Order 83.1.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I move—