Steve Mahoney

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

If the member wants to chirp she should sit in her seat. She is eating an apple. I am sorry, she is hungry.

The real truth of all of this debate here today is that the Reform Party is against giving any kind of self governance, any kind of authority to the first nations people. Members of the Reform Party should be ashamed of themselves for standing in the way of this legislation.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to help out by saying that I was not directing my comments at any individual member, to suggest that a member was actually uttering a falsehood or an untruth. I was saying that it is wrong and it is fearmongering to suggest that some grand powers of expropriation are being placed in the hands of some people who are going to ignore their own community and throw people out of their homes. That is not true. That is what I said and that is what I say again.

On the expropriation matter, it is like with any municipality. If the municipality needs the land for the common good, then there is a process. There is law in Canada. This does not abrogate that law or the responsibility of the band signing this agreement from living up to the terms of that law. They cannot simply expropriate without due value, without due consideration and without due process in law, just like a municipality, just like a provincial government and just like the federal government.

To try to frighten these folks just because a few have concerns and to look for loopholes or ways in which the Reform Party, which happens to be the only party in this place taking this position I might add, I think there is a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda might be Nisga'a. It just might be the fact that the Reform Party has placed a tremendous amount of political capital on the table in the province of British Columbia.

The Reform members feel they have to cave in to some of the more extreme municipal officials perhaps. They are yelling so I am obviously making a point. I guess they are getting their knickers in a twist. It is fine for them do do that but they should stand up and tell people what they really are opposed to.

In reality what we have here is a framework agreement that will be established and which will lay out the rules. It is quite clear that the first thing that happens under that framework agreement is that a first nation must develop a land code. That land code sets out the basic rules and procedures, reading right from the presentation, that will govern interest in land and resources after the land provisions of the Indian Act cease to apply to these communities.

The first nations put in place the land code. People understand the rules. The people in the actual community get to vote. If they are over 18, they will get to vote on the land code. Sounds reasonably democratic to me. I do not see anybody hiding. I do not see anybody other than members of the Reform Party using scare tactics on this. I do not see that happening.

In fact, this is putting in place framework agreements with 14 first nation communities so they can establish land codes through a democratic process, through a duly elected council. One of the members said that this agreement places the power for governance in the hands of the council. My goodness that sounds radical. Imagine that. Giving power to elected officials. And they get elected presumably over a period of time on an ongoing basis. They represent their constituents.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I took the advice of one of the speakers from the Reform Party and I listened for the past couple of hours to the debate on the amendments to this bill.

After listening and talking to some of my colleagues and others and getting some advice on this, I have come to one fairly inescapable conclusion. The Reform Party simply does not support self-government. I do not know how I could arrive at any other conclusion.

It is quite clear to me that what the Reform Party has done is to put forward amendments that are pure nonsense. I guess it has done this in an attempt to hide what it is really saying under the guise of supporting some minority individuals who have spoken out and expressed concern which under normal circumstances would be laudable. The Reform Party simply does not want to see any self-government or any land claim agreements or any kind of a deal made with these first nation communities that would provide them with the dignity they have been negotiating.

How can we arrive at anything else when we look at the fact that the provinces have been consulted and they are on side. The 14 chiefs of the first nation communities have signed and gone through the democratic process on this.

What we are really hearing is that the Reform Party does not trust them to be able to make their own decisions. It does not trust these first nation peoples to be able to run a democratic community, allowing for people to have a say and a vote in establishing the land code. What other conclusion could we come to if we look at the substantiveness or the lack of substantiveness of these amendments?

I looked at one amendment and found it almost laughable. Motion No. 7 is one of the three we are debating today. This motion would delete the names of the 14 first nations from the schedule but would keep the empty schedule. What is that? The Reform Party says “We are out of new ideas, so let us just delete the names of the 14 first nations that signed the agreement”. That is the best the Reform Party can come up with.

Why do Reform members not at least have the courage to stand up and tell the truth which is that they do not support self-government. They do not support this kind of a deal for these first nations. At least we could understand if they had the courage to stand and say that and not hide behind nonsensical, almost silly amendments, deleting the names of the participants to the document. It is astounding.

I hear concerns about expropriation. I have looked at this. I have read through the document. I have read through the information in the bill. It is nothing more than fearmongering to suggest that somehow in the middle of the night they are going to come along and take away their family home with no opportunity for any kind of democratic protection. It is just not true. Members should not say things in this place that are not true. We all know that. We learn that the first day we come here.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if I did not say it I wish I had said it. I probably did say it. If I recall correctly I said that Canadians are proud of their health care system. Yes, there are problems with it.

It is quite interesting to have a Reform member stand here. We heard Reform's solution that 50% of the surplus would go to tax cuts and 50% would go to debt repayment. I guess the third 50% would go to health care. Maybe that is Reform math.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member might find it surprising that I agree with him on a couple of points.

We do have a national housing crisis. However, I separate the issue of housing and homelessness. The problem of homelessness needs to be tied more to health. Anyone who lives on the street in Canada in February is not a well person and we have to address issues around mental health.

We have seen the cuts. The member talks about his home province. Let me talk about my province. We have seen the cuts that have happened in mental health. We have seen the people who are on the streets because the current Conservative government in the province of Ontario has used its 30% income tax cut and taken that money out of the health care system.

We can blame the federal government for downsizing the transfers to the provinces. We have to accept collective responsibility as a nation for some of that. The reality is that it is the provincial Government of Ontario that has closed mental health beds right across the province and those people find themselves on the street.

I too would like to see a national housing policy. I believe that all levels of government need to get back into providing a social housing framework that makes sense for all Canadians. I will support that and I will work toward that. If it does not all show up in this budget, the government will work toward seeing there is some equity and some housing put back in the marketplace.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is delightful to be back. I thank my hon. colleague for leaving me some time to discuss some of the issues around what we are calling prebudget.

The member made an interesting point. He said we were debating two things at this stage, given that the actual budget will be released in this place on February 16. We are talking about the budget in the year 2000 and we are also explaining to Canadian people the impact the 1998 budget has had on the economy and on our country as a whole.

We heard members opposite calling quite loudly for tax relief. It is my sense that there will be some additional tax relief in the budget. I am hopeful there will be. There was over $7 billion in tax relief in the 1998 budget, something that members opposite tend to gloss over. The Canadian people know because they can see it. They can see the actual benefits they get.

Just to share some of them with members, for example, there was an increase in the child tax benefit from the $850 million announced in the 1997 budget. An additional $850 million was put into that. That will go directly to benefiting low income Canadians who need assistance to go to work and to provide proper care for their children.

In addition a caregiver credit was provided in the 1998 budget. We do not hear members opposite talk about its importance. We can think about health care and the impact on families of providing care giving situations to their parents or other relatives. The government recognized it in 1998 as important. To give the detail, a caregiver credit will reduce federal tax by up to $400 for Canadians caring for an elderly parent or a family member with disabilities. This is significant tax relief targeted to help people who specifically need it. I hope we will see more of that kind of budgeting in the budget coming up later this month.

In addition there was an exemption on GST and HST for expenses incurred in the provision of temporary care to someone who by reason of infirmity or disability needed the particular care.

Once again we would think we would hear members in this place telling the Canadian people that this is good budgeting, good financing to help the people who need it most.

Also in that budget the Canadian opportunities strategy provided tax assistance for Canadians who wished to advance their learning. It did a number of things. It provided tax relief for interest payments on student loans. We heard from students at various committees and in our offices. They have written letters talking about the incredible burden of graduating from school with a debt burden of $25,000 or more from student loans. We provided some assistance and even an opportunity, if hardship could be shown, where that particular interest could be written off entirely.

There was an opportunity in the last budget for tax free RRSP withdrawals for lifelong learning. In today's society with the downsizing and the changes that have occurred there are many Canadians, many of them middle income Canadians, who cry for tax relief. Many Canadians have suddenly found themselves going from being middle income to being no income simply because they have been downsized, their company has changed their method of doing business or whatever. In many instances they are not only middle income but are also middle age.

This allows them an opportunity to tap into an RRSP fund that is available for their retirement to allow them to take courses so they can perhaps readjust and create new employment for themselves. It is tax relief with some sense behind it to say it will directly benefit those people who need the help. There is also an education credit and child care expense deduction for part time students.

In the last two budgets of the government there was a real move toward providing some tax relief that made sense. It was targeted to help people in either adjusting their lifestyle, taking care of dependants who might be ill, infirm or disabled in some way, or helping them provide education for younger members of their families.

When we talk in terms of the next budget perhaps we as parliamentarians will have some access to it. I believe, as my colleague mentioned, this budget has been put to bed. Being only a couple of weeks from now perhaps there are some i's to dot and t's to cross, but at the end of the day the budget policies have been hashed out in this place. The policies have gone before parliamentary committees. They have been taken to caucus. There has been input from Canadians. This budget is probably done. The next budget will be for the year 2000.

It is interesting that this is really about fighting over the spoils. When the government was first elected in 1993 it walked into a situation where people were describing us in cities like New York, Washington and others around the world as a third world country because of the size of our deficit at $42 billion. I stress the deficit being the overdraft, the deficit being the shortfall in the operating budget, not the debt. It is a different concept. It is important that Canadians understand that in 1993 the government was spending $42 billion on an operating basis more than it was bringing in in revenue.

The world was looking at us and saying that for the size of our country of 30 million people, for the size of our GDP, for the entire output of our nation, a $42 billion debt was unacceptable. We were being referred to as a third world nation.

That does incredible damage. It is not just the psyche and the problem it creates for Canadians who are proud of their country. Canadians continually hear others outside the country saying we are the greatest nation in the world. Canadians know that but were very uncomfortable feeling that no one was properly managing the financial store. I am sad to say that I think it was true. The proof was in the pudding. The reality is that the deficit has been eliminated and the government has retired $13 billion in marketable debt. For the first time perhaps since the days of Mike Pearson we see in a chart that there is a downward trend in the debt. There is an upward trend in the economy. Canadians are feeling proud not only of being from this great country with a health care system, quality of education, our standard of living and being proud of our flag, they are proud that this government has dedicated itself to fiscal restraint and at the same time has put in place opportunities to assist Canadians who need it through our tax relief programs. We are going to see more of the same and the country will continue to grow and prosper. Canadians know that and they speak about it in resounding numbers every day. Things are strong and will get stronger.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I have been called worse by better so I do not take it seriously at all.

The bill provides an opportunity for impartiality. More important, the member opposite should recognize that it provides for an opportunity for parliament to have control over the agency, both through the public accounts committee and through the required five year reporting system that will come into effect. We know it is extremely important, representing Canadians from right across Canada, that opportunity exists.

It is a fundamentally sound bill. I doubt if it would come as a great surprise in my heart or my mind not to find an offer of support for the motion put by the opposition member, but I think he should support the bill.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understood the question, but I will try to answer what I perceive might be the question, that is on what I base my remarks.

I base my remarks on quotes that are available from people who have presented their concerns and their support for the bill. Mr. Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

I'm convinced three of the four provinces in Atlantic Canada will be on side.

Robert Spindler of Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants said:

My understanding, and I think the way a lot of businesses operate, is if you have an attractive idea, an attractive structure and attractive concept that makes good sense, over time there can be buy-in.

I would not deny there are people who are opposed, most of them fueled by members of the opposition who simply find it their duty to oppose anything regardless of the efficacy or the quality of the idea because they see that as simply their role. My opinions are based on facts from independent Canadians representing people right across Canada who think this is a darn good idea.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

I listened to the member who just spoke on behalf of the Bloc. I was not sure that the speech had anything to do with the revenue bill, but I cannot stand in this place and allow certain comments that were made not to be challenged.

It does not seem to matter to members opposite from time to time if statements are based on fact or on someone's personal interpretation of a particular committee report. The member went on at some length about the report of the subcommittee on sports in Canada. The member should read that report as I have done. Nowhere in that report will a reference to tax breaks for millionaire athletes be found. I am absolutely confident that members of the government would be opposed to such a thing.

I wonder what the member might say to the people of Quebec City who lost their hockey team due to its inability to compete in the marketplace known as the National Hockey League in North America.

I wonder what the member of the Bloc might say to the fans in Montreal and right across Canada if the Montreal Canadiens were to find themselves in jeopardy or facing bankruptcy or the possibility of moving to the United States. It is unimaginable that a veteran franchise such as the Montreal Canadiens could simply lose its position in the Canadian sports scene.

All that committee has done is highlight the difficulties faced in an industry. Sports in Canada is an industry. The Montreal Canadiens alone pay more in property tax than all franchises in the United States combined. It is a stunning figure and a frightening situation.

I refer other members of the House, not the member of the Bloc, to the minority reports that were appended to the committee because there was a lot of support for amateur sports in the country. I just wanted to correct the record in that regard.

I have heard members say in this place that somehow the revenue bill was being rushed through the House. I did a bit of research. In the throne speech of February 1996 an announcement was made by the government of its intention to introduce this bill. On June 4 the bill was introduced for first reading and on October 2 it received second reading. It was then sent to committee where witnesses from across Canada were interviewed about the impact that they thought the bill might have. Here we are at December 8 and we are talking about third reading of the bill.

To suggest that the bill has been given short shrift or in some way rammed through parliament is to simply mislead the Canadian public. The bill has had debate. It has had input.

I also heard from members opposite, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, who said that none of the provinces had bought into the bill and that none of the provinces were prepared to accept the new agency.

Let me deal first with the province of Quebec. It is interesting that in committee the other day members opposite put forth 188 amendments, every one of them calling for a particular clause to be rejected. How many clauses might hon. members think are in the bill? There happened to be 188. In their creative way of thinking, from a province that does not even have its taxes collected by the federal government but has its own tax collection regime, they would take exception to the agency for some unknown reason, simply because it is a government bill and to oppose is to oppose is to oppose.

Let us talk about quotes from some of the folks whom we have talked to. The minister of finance for the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Don Downe said:

This contract builds on the current strong, co-operative relationship between Nova Scotia and Revenue Canada and provides the means for our relationship to evolve under the new agency.

Another five provinces are actively working with Revenue Canada to determine if this agency could improve the administration of their programs because they understand that at the end of the day there is only one taxpayer.

Even Ernie Eves, the Ontario Minister of Finance, in a letter of September 22 makes the following point:

The CCRA could benefit Ontario taxpayers if it is able to administer Ontario taxes (both non-harmonized and harmonized)—

That is a very interesting point, because the Conservatives in Ontario have been very staunchly opposed to any kind of harmonization, to any kind of attempt to bring collection agencies together and perhaps establish one base tax that could be collected for all.

Why should we fight over who collects it? It gets transferred down to the provinces. Possibly it could be collected in a harmonized negotiated atmosphere and transferred up. Up to this point Mr. Eves and his government have refused to even discuss it. He goes on in his letter:

—more cheaply and efficiently than the Ontario government... taxpayers could benefit if the CCRA were able to improve services available to taxpayers.

Many think that there is some kind of coalition between the Ontario Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the drive to unite the right. I want to take members a little farther west on that point, if I might, to a proud Albertan, the provincial treasurer of Alberta, Mr. Stockwell Day. We have seen Mr. Day in negotiations with the Leader of the Opposition and with others on the unite the right drive. We have seen Tony Clement, the minister of transportation for Ontario, joining that somewhat crowded king size bed. Maybe it is queen size, I am not sure. It is not that big, but they are attempting to expand it. I am sure members get my point.

The reason they are all doing this, they try to purport, is to somehow offer a magical solution to the Liberals. Are you signalling victory or two minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker? Poll after poll indicates that Canadians believe in the government, believe in the things we are doing. We have incredible support for our Prime Minister and for the policies of the government. Let me share the comments of Stockwell Day:

It's good to see Revenue Canada becoming more open to provincial input in its approach to collecting provincial taxes, as it moves toward its new status as a federal crown agency. We're always willing to explore possibilities that would benefit our taxpayers as well as safeguard the public purse.

It appears that as we speak, unfolding before us at this very moment, the wheels on the unite the right wagon are falling off.

It appears that Mr. Day sees the benefits of an agency that could streamline administration, that could be more open and accessible to Canadians, that could benefit every taxpayer at the provincial and the federal level.

Frankly I congratulate him for not confusing the politics of extremism on the right with—I hate to use word common sense because Mr. Harris seems to think he owns it—the common sense of putting in place an agency that will be accountable to parliament, where there will be a mandatory five year review of the agency and an opportunity at the public accounts committee to review it even more often. It will be an agency that will be accountable to the minister, accountable to parliamentarians, accountable to provincial treasurers and ministries across the land. It is an agency whose time has come.

As we hear people talk about rationalization and downsizing, we have an opportunity to do something that will save taxpayers' money and benefit all Canadians.

[Immigration, December 8th, 1998]

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

Last week police broke a major sex ring and freed dozens of female sex slaves from brothels across the greater Toronto area. Eight people were arrested and charged with supplying Canadian brothels with as many as 160 Asian women every year.

How can this happen in Canada? How can an organized sex ring import sex slaves into Canada? What is the government doing to prevent this kind of activity from occurring in the future?