Steve Mahoney

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member of the Reform Party typically talks about cuts to the provinces for health care of $16 billion over the mandate. He does not talk about the $11.5 billion in one budget, in one fell swoop, that was put back into the system.

Reformers have actually said that they would take 50% of the surplus to pay down the debt and 50% to reduce taxes. Then they say that they will take another 50% to put into health care and maybe another 50% for something else. Come on. Do they think the Canadian people are stupid? They know the cuts the Reform Party has proposed in its campaign documentation. It would slash anything to do with heritage. It would cut the military. It would introduce two tier health care. It would destroy the relationships between the federal government and the provinces.

With regard to the EI fund, this government has balanced the books of this country and the EI surplus exists because the economy is strong, because we have created jobs. There are 1.6 million more Canadians working since this government took office.

Our facts are very clear. The Reform is just blowing smoke.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just past noon on the day after celebrating St. Patrick's Day I want to say that I made several contributions last night to the tax system along with my colleagues. I will temper my remarks with the realization that that occurred.

I say to the member opposite that it is really quite mind boggling to sit here and listen to a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus spend almost his entire time defending the Brian Mulroney government. I really would have thought it would be in his best interest to distance himself from that memory.

The Canadian people passed judgment and reduced that caucus in 1993 to a group large enough to fit into a phone booth. There were a few more elected in the last election, primarily from eastern Canada, and one from Ontario. Anyone would have thought that those members really would not want to revisit what happened during the Mulroney years.

Let us realize something. The 1980s were absolutely the best 10 years this country has enjoyed in terms of revenue, and yet that government managed to run overdrafts every year during times of tremendous prosperity. It is only since 1993 that the country has been put back on track. I do not know that we will see the kinds of increases in real estate values that local communities enjoyed in the 1980s, but we certainly have a much stronger economy today.

It is very hard to understand why a government would intentionally, at times of high revenue, spend its revenue to the point of running a $42 billion deficit.

Let us be clear. A deficit is an overdraft. What the member neglected to mention is that the $42 billion was not a one time thing. It was every year. That government intentionally, every year, during times of high revenue, overspent when it should not have.

During those times municipalities across Canada realized what was happening. Municipalities put their houses in order. Municipalities paid down their debt. My own city of Mississauga is debt free. Municipalities across the country realized that they had an opportunity during times of high revenue to put some money away, to pay down debt, to not run deficits.

We hear about the cuts which this government has made. What choice was there? Do we continue to spend into oblivion? Do we continue to run up the overdraft and increase the debt?

Madam Speaker, I should mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

The way a government deals with its finances is to run that overdraft or deficit until it gets to the end of the budget year. Then it takes that deficit and piles it on top of the debt. That, in essence, is how we have arrived at such a large debt.

This government has made commitments. We have reduced the debt by $20 billion. In two successive budgets we have reduced taxes. Is it enough of a reduction? Of course not. I would like to see more. My constituents would like to see more in the way of tax reductions. I believe they will. That is a commitment that our finance minister has made.

To stand and simply, in many instances, mislead people with some of these statements and accusations about our tax system does an injustice to the Canadian people. We should tell them the facts. Is our tax system complicated? You bet it is. Should we review it to see if we can smooth it out? I think we should. In fact the federal government has negotiated harmonization agreements with some provinces and attempted to do it with others.

Would harmonization mean that since there is only one taxpayer that maybe we should have one tax collector instead of the very complicated system that we have in this country?

This government would not be afraid to admit that the tax system is complicated. It has been built, layer upon layer, over the years, which makes it extremely difficult for the average Canadian to understand or for the average member of parliament to understand.

I want to pay tribute to a group which I think is doing some very good work to help particularly low income Canadians understand the tax system. It is a group made up of volunteer chartered accountants and CA students, sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, which runs free tax clinics to help thousands of low income Canadians fill out their tax forms and pay their taxes.

Just by way of a little commercial to the taxpayers, since we are coming up to that time, the Institute of Chartered Accountants can be reached at 1-800-387-0735, extension 462. People can call them and get free advice on dealing with the very complicated matter of filing their income tax.

I want to congratulate the institute. I think it is a very positive thing and something from which the taxpayers will clearly benefit.

I want to return to the issue of harmonization. I have said in this place before that this country has a large number of taxes, and people do pay a fair amount of money, so it seems to me that there should be a way to streamline and reduce the collection process.

We have done that in some parts of the country. I think we need to continue talking about it, but the provinces tend not to want to do that. They do not want to give up their fiefdoms. I guess that is understandable, except that they know as well as we do that there is only one taxpayer.

The bill that we are dealing with will amend the Income Tax Act. Instead of talking about somebody's poor memory as to what went on in the Mulroney years and the size of the deficit, I have not heard anybody talking about the specific amendments, so I researched some of them and I want to share them. I think they are pretty good and Canadians should know about them.

This bill will introduce a new non-refundable tax credit for individuals to an annual maximum of $500. Canadians need to know that when they are filling out their tax forms. They should ask their accountants about it. Or if they are going to the clinic sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, they should ask about it. It reduces the surtax, which is something we heard many people calling for. This bill does that.

This measure I think is very important. The homebuyers plan will be modified to allow for tax free withdrawals from RRSPs to acquire homes for disabled individuals, whether or not they are first time homebuyers. That is a very significant issue. It shows that we recognize that the disabled community needs some assistance in buying homes. Obviously, if their disability inhibits their ability to earn income, they need help. Therefore, not only first time homebuyers, but people who are disabled will actually be able to draw from an RRSP to buy a home. I think it is a terrific idea.

There is a tax credit for interest on student loans. We hear about the debt burden of students. The one thing that we should recognize when we do an analysis is that, if the taxes are high, what is the other side of it? We have heard Reform members say they would bring in user fees. The cost of university in this country is substantially lower, probably four times lower than the cost of a similar university program in the United States.

We know that the Reform Party believes in two tier health care. We do not. We believe that should be funded through the tax system. We are absolutely opposed to the two tier health system that these folks talk about.

I have run out of time, but there are a lot of other areas which I would like to mention. There is a tax credit for caregivers. There is recognition of part time education and single moms. There are all kinds of serious benefits for the taxpayer in this bill. It is beyond me why everybody in the House would not support it so that we could get the message out and concentrate on communicating the facts instead of misleading the Canadian public.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing to hear this member make remarks like that. If we want to research Hansard we will find three words uttered by that very member. These are not my words; they were his words. He said “Separatists are traitors”. Is he telling me that he would make a remark like that and somehow be denigrating the people of Quebec? That is nonsense.

At no time have I spoken against the people of Quebec. I speak against the Bloc. I will always speak against the Bloc because they are trying to destroy my country.

The future leader of the united alternative had better watch out. As I have pointed out before, if he is on their hockey team, they should not let him shoot on their net because he will score against his own team.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what is the problem? Scarborough. Toronto. It is Mississauga. It is a beautiful city. It is the fifth largest city in the country. It has a wonderful mayor and a wonderful council. It is a great place. It never rains or snows in Mississauga. What else can I say?

Let me say to the hon. member that I do not have the longevity in this place that he does and I cannot answer for what happened in the era of Mr. Trudeau, but I can tell him that when I was elected in the last election I did not run on cancelling the GST. Not this member. This member will not run on that.

I believe most Canadian subscribe to what this party stands for. It was obvious in the election results. We have eliminated the deficit, no thanks to the Tory party. We have the country working again. We have created 1.6 million new jobs since we took office.

I cannot help it if members from Kicking Horse Pass or wherever cannot see the success that has accrued during the term of this government, but that is the reality. Let the hon. member read it and weep.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was fumbling around looking for some Kleenex and I am sorry I could not find any. Are members aware of what the separatist said at the united alternative conference? He closed his remarks with these words: “My language, my country”, and the member across gave him a standing ovation.

As a Canadian it is my view that no one who believes in the country should give a standing ovation to an avowed separatist who came before a group legitimately trying to start a new party because the old one is dead. I understand that. Obviously they have to do something. For them to give a standing ovation is nothing more than an embarrassment to the people they represent.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with a pan-American monetary agreement, Canada would no doubt have to adopt the American currency or a new currency, a new, completely new dollar system, which would be dominated by the American political interests.

Under that new system, Canada would give up its national monetary policy, which is an integral part of its sovereignty.

This is about giving up sovereignty. This is about destroying the country. I do not care if the member is happy with his paycheque. I am not happy that he is getting paid to sit here and destroy Canada.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Brian Mulroney did that. I thank the member for asking the question. Keep throwing me more little tidbits. It helps.

We have regionalization. We have a western based party that is so confused it has actually gone to the rank and file in the Reform Party and said it wants to close shop. It does not think it can go any further than it has been.

I had an interesting opportunity when I was an observer delegate on behalf of the federal Liberal Party at the united alternative conference. It was like sticking a thousand pins in my eyes for the entire weekend, but I did it and saw the most incredible thing I could not believe.

When Jean Allaire, a committed separatist, stood to speak to the gathered throng of some 1,500 mostly Reformers, there was a standing ovation. Can anyone imagine a standing ovation? Then Rodrigue Biron, a noted economist from the province of Quebec who is also a committed separatist, addressed this august or not so august body, and once again a standing ovation occurred. I could not understand how this could happen.

For the last couple of weeks I travelled throughout the west on a task force meeting with folks from Richmond, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg. There are no separatists out there. They are all true, red blooded Canadians. They believe in this land and the sea to sea to sea motto in spite of the fact that the political poobahs of the Reform Party ran those disgusting adds during the last election campaign. People in western Canada want Quebec to stay in Canada. Of course there are some who do not but the vast majority in their hearts want to keep this land strong and united.

It was quite remarkable to sit at this united alternative conference, which I must admit was only attended by two members of the Conservative caucus who were there more as spies than as any kind of supporter. They were not very happy and a little confused. I am sure they have been whipped into shape now and are back in line.

A number of the Conservative riding associations fired any of the delegates who attended. They kicked them right out of the party. That is called inclusiveness. It was quite interesting. In a certain way I do not blame the Conservatives. Why would they want to do that? They just went through a process where they elected an old leader to come back and help lead them to the promised land. Even though the leader of the Reform Party is throwing his entire party into the waste bin, at least the Conservative Party had the common sense not to do that.

We all agree in this place, even the Bloc members, their main goal or reason for being here is to lead their province out of Confederation. They want to enter into negotiations to have a pan-American monetary policy. The question has been put as to whether it would be the American dollar. Would the Americans just sit down and say that it does not matter, that they will cash in their chips and start a new dollar of some kind?

If that happened, would that be the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually lead Canada to no longer having a currency, an identity or a position on the international monetary scene? We would be seen as just sort of a hick-up on the side of some new pan-American dollar. That might lead to the break-up.

We would have a Canada divided along monetary lines. Its characteristics and its strengths would be totally destroyed and Quebec would see itself as being on its own. Who would Quebec have to deal with in that event? It would have to deal with the Yankees.

I want to know how many here think the Americans would tolerate separatism for more than a hick-up. Not a chance. In no circumstances would separatists be able to go into the hallowed halls of congress and debate that they should be allowed to separate from that body. It just would not be accepted or tolerated.

One Bloc member made the comment that living beside an elephant can be quite expensive. It is a heck of a lot better than sleeping with one in case it rolls over. That could be a little more than expensive. In essence that is where this would lead us if we were to follow it.

What a terrible waste of time, effort and money in this place and in our committee system when we should be talking to Canadians about what we will do for our youth, how we will help our young people. I am chairing a task force on youth entrepreneurship. I am honoured to do so, to be able to travel the country to meet with young people, to listen to their hopes and their dreams, to listen to what government should be doing to assist them in creating a future for themselves.

The reality is that young people realize economic times have changed. They may not simply be able to rely on a job from a large company any more. They might have to be more creative. It is amazing how creative our young people are. I met with eight young entrepreneurs in Regina at a round table. They told me their stories of how they had opened their businesses, how they were proud to be Canadians, and how they were proud to be young, working and succeeding.

There is such a positive story to tell but all we hear is the doomsayers, the negatives, the Reformers, the sky is falling. I have news for them. The sky is not falling; the sky is the limit in this great country.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

I am not sure what the member means by that.

The opposition is uniting to support a motion because its members see an opportunity to derail and to set the agenda. The NDP has not said it will support this, so there is a tad of common sense on the left extreme in this place. I am pleased to say that.

In this section why are those members doing this? They want to drive the agenda. They want to throw a cog into the wheel of government any way they can. It does not matter. They have principles and if we do not like them, they have others. It is not a problem.

If we have to mess things up in this place by supporting a Bloc motion, one of the most nonsensical ideas I have ever heard of, they are not beyond doing that. They will lower themselves to whatever level of expectation or non-expectation, and the Tories agree.

Why would they not? If they were prepared to go dancing with Mr. Bouchard, why would they not climb into the sack with these guys here? It does not surprise me at all.

What we have is a regionalization of the political spectrum across this country.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Nothing is wrong with Canadian Tire. It is great. This member would obviously try to build an economy on a foundation of coupons. We have a policy on the books being debated that we should convert to a system of coupons. It would not surprise me if that is where the supposed would-be leader of the united alternative tried to lead this great country.

The point I want to make is that the Bloc is interested only in undermining anything Canadian. It would undermine anything that stands for principles of democracy in this country. That is its goal. It wants to destroy the country. It is in its interests for it to pass a motion if it believes or subscribes to that particular policy.

Let us be soft and gentle. Let us send it to committee. It really will not hurt anybody. It is interesting. This is an opposition day. This is the opposition's opportunity to put on the floor of the House of Commons issues of concern to its constituencies, to its party, to the people of the nation.

Why would it not talk about some of the things that concern all parliamentarians if it is doing its job on an equal footing? Why would it not talk about poverty? It is a problem. We in the government have to acknowledge that. It is a problem that we intend to do something about. We will work with the Canadian people toward ending it.

Why would it not talk about housing programs? We know what the provinces have done across this land. I know what happened the minute Mike Harris took office in Ontario. He cancelled all social housing in the entire province.

Why would we not have a debate about that? Maybe it is time the federal government got back involved along with the provinces, along with the area municipalities, along with the regions, along with the non-profit housing corporations, along with the charitable sector and along with the private sector. It is time we got involved in housing.

Why would we not have a substantive debate over something like that? Opposition members want to put forward nonsensical motions the Canadian public could care less about. It is concerned about those issues that hit it.

I want to talk about the Reform for a minute. I do not often do that. I will take a minute because I was very interested to hear the member for Medicine Hat say Canadians are not producing. It is fair game for these members opposite to stand up in this place and take their best shot at the government. Go ahead, we are big boys and big girls. We can handle it. They have trouble taking it back.

Why would that respected member, the finance critic for his party, criticize Canadians and say that they are not producing? Why would he lead an attack on the Canadian people? The truth is the Canadian people are hardworking, honest, dedicated and community oriented. We have a wonderful country with wonderful people in it.

It seems to be in the interests of members of the opposition to stand up and denigrate Canadians right across this land. I fail to understand it. He then said Canadians do not understand what we are debating here today. I wrote it down the minute he said it.

Let me tell the member what they do understand. They understand they are not Americans. They understand they are not separatists. They understand they are not extremists. They are Canadians. They understand and they do not want to be any of those things.

A Conservative member made reference to the ides of March. It reminded me that we are only two days away from St. Patrick's Day, which then reminded me of that wonderful photo op that occurred when Ronald Reagan and then Prime Minister Mulroney sang “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”. There was a wonderful sense of warmth and feeling in this country as Mulroney climbed into bed with the elephant on one side and the separatist on the other side. This is clearly déjà vu all over again.

The Tories will support this motion. That is remarkable. The Tories are actually agreeing that we should go to committee and discuss what amounts to the break-up of this nation. I find it astounding.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thought I did. I made the point and I will make it again. Only in a country like Canada, where our dedication to democratic principles is clearly the highest in the world, would this institution allow for paycheques to be handed out to individuals who are dedicated to the destruction of this place and this country. If they want to take offence that is their problem. It is really quite amazing.

What we see is this crowded bed. It is clear to me that the so-called hidden agenda is not really so hidden. Their counterpart, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, a former cabinet minister in a Conservative government, has said that he is dedicated to creating winning conditions. Those would be winning conditions so that he could win a referendum, so that he could lead the province of Quebec out of the federation of Canada. That is their goal. No one can deny that. They can rise all day long if they wish.

Since Bloc members have been elected by certain people in the province of Quebec I presume that they support Mr. Bouchard's position. If not they should rise on a point of order and tell us they do not agree with their premier. Clearly they are attempting to create winning conditions so they can take their province out of this country.

This motion is supposedly not about common currency. It is about a united pan-American monetary policy without currency. We will have funny money, Canadian Tire money. Maybe they will accept that.