Steve Mahoney

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to be having a bit of a love-in today with members climbing on board the environmental wagon. That is a good thing. Obviously the environment should transcend partisan lines and political differences so that we can pass legislation like Bill C-32 that will put some teeth into the areas of enforcement in dealing with toxic substances by giving the minister and the ministry the powers that are needed.

I find it somewhat interesting though to hear members opposite criticize the bill from the point of view that it gives too much power to the minister or the ministry officials. In question period they would be on their feet waxing somewhat indignantly demanding action and that someone do something. There is a little bit of a contradiction there. However in the spirit that this debate seems to be exuding, I will try to stay away from those aspects.

This bill is about a number of things. It is about toxic substances, the testing, recognition and control of them, the planning on how to eliminate them and the damage they do to human health and to our ecology. It is about air quality and water quality, things that are extremely important to all of us in our ridings and in our large urban communities. It is about enforcing and policing, which I think is long overdue, giving the appropriate authorities the tools they need to deal with people who violate.

I can tell stories about years gone by in Mississauga when certain chemical companies and others, and in fairness to them it was many years ago, were releasing some of their substances into the storm sewers. This was back in the days when I was on city council. Downstream we had situations where people were panicking because there was foam bubbling up through the grates of the storm sewers. Kids were playing outside. No one knew what it was; they were trying to figure it out. Through the region of Peel we ultimately traced it back to the general area. Even though in that particular case we were unable pinpoint the violator, we called a meeting of all industrial companies in the area to show them the damage.

To be fair, I do not know if it was intentional, inadvertent or otherwise, but someone poured some substances into the storm sewer. This can have a devastating impact downstream on all the creeks and streams in my community which ultimately lead into Lake Ontario, from which we draw our drinking water. I should hasten to add that we put it through a cleansing system. We do not drink it straight out of the lake.

This kind of situation is extremely important. It is important that we have a bill which gives the minister the authority to order some kind of planning by potential industrial polluters that could damage our water quality.

Air quality is another issue I find quite interesting. The solution to dealing with waste in our communities over the years in some instances has been to truck it out of the GTA into the Detroit market and put it in an incinerator, at which point it is burned and the prevailing winds bring it all back into Canada. I am not sure that is a particularly intelligent way of dealing with waste disposal. It is surely not an intelligent way of dealing with air quality.

I want to talk about pollution prevention and sustainable development, but before doing so I acknowledge the work by many members on both sides of the House. I particularly want to say that we are all busy doing various things.

My role as an MP over the past several months has been to chair a task force on youth entrepreneurship. I have been travelling all over the country. I also work on citizenship and immigration issues. I have not had time to attend the environmental committee hearings, but I have read them, followed them, talked with my colleagues, and listened to presentations at caucus.

As all of us are busy doing different things in our parliamentary lives, we rely on members who carry the torch and candle for any particular issue. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the tremendous work of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Burlington, in the leadership that she has shown in shepherding the bill through committee, through report stage and on to third reading.

I acknowledge the member for Davenport, a former environment minister and a man respected across the country for his dedication to environmental issues and his hard work. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis who is sharing my time has shown great perseverance. For some years I have known the member for North York to be totally committed to improving our environment, from dealing with toxic substances, air quality and water quality, to enforcement issues.

Of course there is the Minister of the Environment. Those of us on this side are extremely proud of the efforts she has made at a time when raising the environment to the top of the political agenda was perhaps not as politically sexy as it once was. Because of financial constraints and for all of the wrong reasons the minister had to fight hard around the cabinet table. She has worked with her members in caucus and in committee to ensure these issues were brought forward.

I also acknowledge the work of the member in our caucus who chairs the committee on sustainable development. That is the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who has worked doggedly to bring forward and highlight these issues. I very much appreciate that.

I noticed that provisions throughout the bill acknowledge the roles of technology, technical knowledge and innovation in securing the protection of the environment and human health for Canadians today and tomorrow.

I recently had the privilege along with the minister responsible for foreign trade of attending a team Canada trip with 62 young entrepreneurs to Silicon Valley. We visited the Alameda naval base, 1,700 acres of land in the valley area outside Oakland. It is closed. On the edge of that land is a landfill site full of toxic chemicals and live ammunition. We actually had to sign a waiver before we went out there in case we stepped on something inappropriate. I wondered why we were going but in any event we survived.

The purpose of my story is to tell the House that there is a $160 million clean-up contract for that landfill site. It is leaching right into the ocean. There is a $160 million U.S. contract and there are eight companies involved in cleaning it up.

Seven of those companies are Canadian companies and the lead technology is from the University of Waterloo. We can be extremely proud that in the area of environmental sciences this country is producing the technology and the technicians to lead the way in environmental clean-up. The eighth company, the American company, is the one that hauled away the residue after the treatment had taken place. We do have some things of which we can be proud in the areas of technology and showing leadership.

I will touch on another area of the bill which I think is vitally important. We tend to think the best way to solve problems is to wrap them around tax cuts or tax rebates for people who show leadership in the area.

The bill provides the opportunity for an awards system. It is my view that Canadians want to be recognized for contributing to their communities. They want to be recognized for contributing to improving the environment. What better way than putting it into the bill? It allows an opportunity for an awards program. They can with great pride put a plaque on a wall in the office or in the study at home. They can share with their families and be recognized for their vital contributions.

That is worth far more than some kind of income tax cut for a company. It sends a message to all Canadians that we want them to buy into cleaning up the environment. Some would say that it is trite to say, but we have simply borrowed this space for our children. We can hope that we leave it in better shape.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

I have been listening.

It is nothing more than fearmongering and trying to get people upset. I want to give an example.

I received an e-mail from Mr. Greg Jones, a constituent of mine. Mr. Jones wrote “I am a retired police officer and if passage of this bill will negatively impact upon my pension plan or pension plan surplus, do not allow the bill to pass”.

He sent along a copy of an ad that has been placed in one of the Toronto newspapers by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a number of other union organizations. Who knows, there might have been some financial contribution from some party in this place, I say to the members of the New Democratic Party. The ad says “It is about the heist of the hard-earned dollars set aside by workers for their retirement benefits”.

The government is guaranteeing their retirement benefits in this plan. The government is putting the pension for the public service employees into a state where exactly the opposite of what is being said in the advertisement is the case. The pension plan is not being threatened in any way whatsoever.

The ad goes on to say that experts—and of course they do not say who they are; they might be certain opposition critics—warn that this legislation could set a dangerous precedent and encourage private employers to do the same thing. What is not pointed out is that any private sector pension plan must conform to the rules of the Income Tax Act. One of the rules says that the surplus buildup can be no greater than 10% and once it reaches 10% it must be dealt with in some way.

It makes sense to bring what is a very generous and well earned—I would not take anything away from the public service employees—pension plan into compliance with the Income Tax Act. It is a secure pension plan backed by what could obviously be one of the most secure institutions in our land, the Government of Canada. It is a very secure bill. In reality it does not conform to the rules under the Income Tax Act. This bill will allow the cabinet, the governor in council the flexibility to ensure that it does conform.

I want to say to Mr. Jones and all the retirees out there, do not be misled by the rhetoric in this place or by advertisements that tell a little bit of the story. This is not an attack or a grab in any way on the security of the pension plan that Mr. Jones and his other retired colleagues enjoy.

If government members were not allowed to put facts like that on the table, if we were to acquiesce to the members opposite and simply sit here and say nothing, then the kind of information that is being perpetrated in this ad in a close to fraudulent manner would simply be added to. People would get upset and rightfully so if they really thought that the government was in some way attacking their pension plan.

We are dealing with amendments in Group No. 3. The pension plan is secured and primarily funded by the taxpayer. Yes, the workers make a contribution, but the vast majority of the contributions made into this pension plan are made by the taxpayer, not by the worker. Of course I do not see that in the ad and I do not hear it in speeches by the opposition members.

The contribution rate to the pension plan is roughly 70:30 with 70% being contributed by the government, which is the taxpayer. In fact, if we were to extrapolate the existing pension plan over the next one and a half years, that contribution rate would change to 80:20 unless we did something about it. Does it seem to make sense that when an employer is contributing between 70% and 80% of the money that secures the pension plan and the employee is contributing 20% to 30%, that somehow that equates to an equal contribution?

That is the argument members of the NDP would put forward, that this is the money of the workers and somehow it would be increased wages if it was not put forward in a pension contribution. They know that is not true. They know that these contributions were fought and won at the bargaining table. I do not have a problem with that.

I would say that if we are to allow the curve to continue to where the employer will be making an even more inordinate percentage of the contribution toward these plans, then the taxpayers would have a right to ask us, as a government, why we are doing that.

We cannot compare this in any way whatsoever to a private sector pension where the contribution rates are much more likely to be on a 50:50 basis rather than this large discrepancy. To compare this and to get people upset in thinking that this is the thin edge of the wedge and all the private sector companies that provide pension plans for their workers are going to threaten the security of the pension plan is fearmongering. It is misleading. It is putting out information that is not based on fact or truth. It is a serious bit of unfair propaganda being put before the retired people.

That is probably one of the most distasteful things about this. The opposition and some of the unions, the leadership not the rank and file, are putting out information that is getting people worried. Those people are relying on their pensions. Maybe they are a little bit worried about their economic situation. They have had to go through an enormous change. They are no longer earning a full salary and are now living on a pension. It is a time of life when they should be able to feel some comfort in my view. They should not feel that they are under siege.

For individuals here or in the labour movement to get people upset in some attempt to mobilize what we would fondly refer to as grey power is a misuse of the political process. It is an unfair tactic that they are using in getting these folks upset.

My point is it is vitally important that members on this side speak. I have no problem and would never suggest that members opposite should not partake in the democratic process in this place. When there is a bill or a resolution on the floor, whether or not there is time allocation, we all have a responsibility. I represent retired federal workers. I have a responsibility to tell them how I see this bill, to tell them why I support this bill, and not to simply sit here and allow those folks to mislead.

One of the amendments by the hon. member for St. Albert deals with the issue of requiring contribution rates to be in an act of parliament. This is a move that the opposition, primarily the Reform Party, is attempting to bring in to this place so that every bit of regulation, every bit of dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's, must be a full-fledged debate in parliament.

We all know that the process calls for the big picture. The legislation is to be debated, passed and enacted by parliament and the regulations are to be handled by the staff of the Government of Canada. We know that and we it is appropriate. To do it the way the hon. member is suggesting would create a gridlock. It would make it impossible to make the changes that we think are vital to secure the future of the pension plan for all public sector employees.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will first make a comment with regard to the second attempt in essence to muzzle members of parliament simply because they represent the government side. That kind of thinking is a little dangerous. The reality is if we were not to speak on this issue, as has been requested, we would obviously hear one side of the issue and unfortunately we would hear the side that is not based on reality.

[Employment, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The Building and Construction Trades Council, along with the AFL-CIO, have been concerned for some time about the implementation of a fair wage policy by the Government of Canada.

On behalf of the thousands of workers affected, can the minister tell the House what the status is of our fair wage policy and when specifically the fair wage schedules will come into effect?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member says it is not my money and he is right. The money belongs to the taxpayers of Canada. I am only one of them but I speak on behalf of others and they want us to pay down the debt, without a doubt.

The Vancouver Sun said “If the money had not gone into the pension plan, it would have been paid as wages to the employees”. That is the position the opposition takes. “It is an argument with merit”, the Vancouver Sun went on to say, “but it runs up against one with even more merit. The employer, the federal government, must make up any shortfall in the plan”—in other words, the taxpayer is the guarantor of the pension plan—“which as a defined benefit plan guarantees the amount of pension received. The employer”—taxpayer—“shoulders the risk and should get any reward”.

That is not a statement by a member of the cabinet. That is not a statement made by a member of the backbench in support of the cabinet. That is a statement right out of the Vancouver Sun . Members opposite who represent ridings in western Canada should listen to that.

The Montreal Gazette said “But fair is fair. If taxpayers were willing to take a risk to keep the plan solvent, they should get their money back if it is no longer required”. The Edmonton Journal said “The reason is simple: that is government money. If it is not needed to provide a fair pension to government employees, a fair pension not a sumptuous one, it is urgently needed for other purposes”. The Toronto Star asked “Whose pension surplus?” Whose surplus is it?. We know whose it is. It is the taxpayers' surplus.

This bill is responsible. Those members are trying to cloud the issue with some nonsensical statements about forcing something through. There has been over one year of consultations and there have been committee hearings. It is now in the House at report stage. In this case, democracy is working well.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I say on the backs of the taxpayers because it is the taxpayers who have to carry the burden of that debt.

We should take every opportunity in this place to identify surpluses in each and every plan, in each and every department.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

It is true.

Instead they are using the stale argument that somehow the government is ramming something through. One of them made the statement that just because we have a majority we think we can do things around here. Is that not bizarre in a democracy? When we get a majority it means we are responsible to do things. It means we are the government.

Not that it would ever happen, but were the members opposite through some freak of fate on this side of the House with a majority government, would they turn the reins of government over to a minority opposition party, to a party that represents only one region of the country, a party that does not have the interests of the entire nation in its platform? I do not think they would. If we wanted to see things rammed through this place, just let those guys get control of the reins of government for one minute.

What we have here is a public pension fund. It is particularly curious that members of the Reform Party, of all people, would not support using a surplus. How did that surplus build up? It was through contributions over the years guaranteed by the employer, which is the federal government. A surplus of some $30 billion has been identified. Rather than leaving it in a black box or leaving it on the books, the government says it makes sense to reduce the size of the federal government's debt with that money. This is only one program of many.

At least I understand the principles behind the New Democrats who would purport to represent the men and women in the unions in this situation. At least with their principles they say that the money belongs to the workers. I do not agree with them but I understand the philosophy and the principles they stand behind on the issue.

I find such difficulty coming to grips with the other parties, notably the Reform Party. It would purport to want to cut taxes, eliminate the debt, reduce spending in every aspect of the government, except health care of course where it is going to spend more except it is cutting so it will not have more to spend. The math is quite mind boggling. It comes out opposed to reducing the debt.

I am really curious. The member opposite said he would like to find a member in the Liberal backbench who would stand up and vote against the government so that he could respect that member. I would like to find a member over there who could possibly justify the total abdication of Reform's stated policy for fiscal responsibility by suggesting that a $30 billion surplus generated primarily through good management of the pension fund and by the taxpayers should be left alone.

I do not understand it. I am sure if their constituents back home in western Canada had an opportunity to question them on it, the constituents would wonder why Reform members are doing this. It goes contrary to everything they have stood for. Where is the public?

It is interesting. We do not hear about the bill. We do not hear about the fact that there has been over one year of consultation with the public sector unions. There are things we could not agree with.

Should it be such a tremendous surprise that in an employer-employee bargaining relationship there might be things that cannot be resolved at the bargaining table? There might be things we would have to agree to disagree on and move on. That is exactly what has happened here. That process has taken place. Nobody is ramming anything through. If the opposition members were doing their duty as opposition members they would be putting on the floor the real issues of debate in this bill that have been raised in committee.

That is the other point. The bill went to the natural resources committee. A member stood and showed this 200 page bill. If the members opposite are so upset with it, we would expect out of a 200 page bill there might be 50, 60, 100 amendments. We see it all the time. We see it with other bills. Why is it there are a total of 15 amendments that have been put on the floor and most of them are absolutely not the type of amendment that would have a great impact? They are minor amendments.

I do not understand why those members will not discuss the bill. They continually want to talk about the so-called issue of closure which is not what we are doing at all. We are at report stage in the House which is a normal process.

Members opposite think that Canadians are in a uproar over this. A lot of Canadians would love to have a pension both as secure and as generous as this pension is. A lot of my constituents would look at this and ask why should they, taxpayers, leave a $30 billion surplus for somebody to play around with in the future when in fact it should be used to pay down the debt.

One member opposite said that at election time somebody is going to be using this money to build roads or to do favours in someone's riding. We are talking about reducing the national debt.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting. We are debating a bill of a lot of significance. It has been through a committee process. It has had over one year of negotiations between the unions representing the workers and the government. It is in the House for discussion at report stage where we would generally put forward and discuss amendments. I have listened to the last three speakers from the opposition and I have not heard anyone discuss the actual amendments they want to put forward.

[United Alternative, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the so-called grassroots of the Reform Party got a chance to speak their mind on the Anderson plan for the united right. Many of them gave this clearly crass and opportunistic scheme to try to win power a big thumbs down.

Here is what one Reform member said at a town hall meeting held in Edmonton, “To me, UA is a threat to the very cause of what I signed up for”. Here is what another Reformer said in opposition to the UA, “We want to take part in party policy from the ground up. We do not want to be governed; we want to be represented”. From a woman in Calgary, “Political parties”, she said, “are not meant to be merged together. They need to remain distinct and separate in order to be able to distinguish between their beliefs and ideas. Conservative and Reform go together”, she said, “like oil and water”.

If the Reform leader believes in listening to his grassroots, then he had better pull the cotton out of his ears because they are telling him this united alternative just will not fly.

[Youth Entrepreneurship, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Prime Minister's task force on youth entrepreneurship, I have had the privilege in the past few months of meeting some very creative and determined young Canadians.

They are entrepreneurs, they are techno-wizards, ice cream makers, wedding planners, private detectives and animators. Some of them were actually youth at risk who are now making positive contributions to their country and to their communities.

They have come before our task force, not with their hands out for cash, but with good suggestions on how we can encourage more youth to join their ranks.

They are our future and I want the young entrepreneurs of Canada to know how impressed we in the task force are with their accomplishments. We know that members in this House will look forward to our report to the Prime Minister this fall in celebrating youth entrepreneurship in Canada.