Steve Mahoney

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

The member says shame on the Liberals. I say shame on the NDP for distorting the facts around this bill and for trying to perpetuate a number of myths that are simply not based on fact, many of which I will point out hopefully with some clarity.

As to the issue of closure, we have had 12 hours of debate in this place. Members opposite know full well that if they want to put amendments to a piece of legislation, the place to do that is in committee. One would almost think that members opposite, whether Bloc members who have their own agenda or NDP members who would like to see changes to this bill, would prefer that this bill be taken out of this place and put into the hands of a committee so that they could then put forward their amendments. They just might be surprised. Perhaps some of those amendments, if they make sense and if they are researched properly, which I do not have that much confidence in, might survive at the committee process.

One fundamental point is that the bill does something that I talked about in my former days in the province of Ontario, that is sets up one tax collector. Canadian people do not understand why we have so much bureaucracy to collect taxes.

The bill has received tremendous support from across the country. Members, particularly in the NDP but also in the Bloc, are stating, as the previous speaker said just moments ago, that provinces across Canada in addition to Quebec are not supporting the bill. That is simply not true. It is very unfortunate that a member can stand in this place and say something as false as that kind of statement.

Let me give an example. I will admit that the province of Quebec does not want the agency to administer its revenue programs. That is not a surprise. The Bloc Quebecois members are in the wrong house, I would respectfully suggest. They are provincial politicians. They openly admit they are not interested in a federation that works from sea to sea to sea.

It should come as no surprise that they would oppose any kind of agency that would streamline, reduce costs, reduce overhead and make the federation of Canada work better. That is not in their interest. They want to destroy our federation. We understand where they are coming from.

The reality is that the minister of revenue in Quebec has a strong working relationship with Revenue Canada. It has admitted that it collects the GST. That shows we are working together. That is clearly a federal task. People from the revenue ministry of the province of Quebec have already indicated, to correct the statements made, that they may participate on the board of management by submitting a list of nominees to help establish the process and make it work. Why do Bloc members not admit that? Why do they continue to falsify the record by saying that their province is totally opposed?

Revenue Canada has not received a single, unequivocal no from any other province. I want to share some quotes. Revenue Canada just concluded a service contract with the province of Nova Scotia. Let us go across this great land and take a look at what the provinces are saying. Mr. Don Downe, minister of finance for Nova Scotia, 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.

That sure does not sound like no to me. That sounds like federal-provincial co-operation. I will continue. Mr. Keith Colwell, Nova Scotia minister of business and consumer services said:

The details of this framework make good business sense—

And I know the NDP does not understand:

—and will mean better, more cost effective service, for the citizens of Nova Scotia.

That is a responsible statement by a provincial minister taking a look at some rejigging of the system and how the federation works.

Several members opposite have said that my province, the province of Ontario, opposes this agency. Let me give them a quote from my sometimes good friend Ernie Eves, the Ontario minister of finance who said:

I think that an agency like the CCRA could be a way to achieve Ontario's objectives of a simple, flexible, certain and transparent income tax system.

We all know that Ernie and Mike and the boys in Ontario are more in line philosophically with the Reform Party. Their common sense revolution clearly outlined principles and documentation that were extreme to the right and we have seen the impact in Ontario.

However, here is the treasurer, Mike Harris' number one golfing buddy and number one hit man, saying that it could be a flexible, certain and transparent income tax system. Ernie went on to say:

The CCRA could also provide a platform for a more flexible partnership between Ontario and the federal government.

I did not say it. It was Ernie Eves and I agree with him. I have another quote as recently as September 22 from my pal Ernie:

The CCRA could benefit Ontario taxpayers if it is able to administer Ontario taxes (both non-harmonized and harmonized) more cheaply and efficiently than the Ontario government.

He does not have his head stuck in the sand. He realizes that there is only one taxpayer and that a change like this could benefit that taxpayer. That is what he said, that taxpayers could benefit if the CCRA were able to improve services available to them. He has left the door wide open to negotiate with the federal government. He is being responsible in this instance. It is not often that I would say that about the provincial Tories, but in this instance they realize the benefits.

Let us go to New Brunswick. Those folk over there have been saying that every province in the country is against it. So far I have not found one on my journey across Canada. I know members opposite hate this because they do not like to hear the truth put on the record, the facts in terms of what provincial ministers are actually saying. NDP members would rather fabricate the information. They would rather take their interpretation of the bill, cry foul, say that it is awful and that the sky is falling. It is just not true. This is common sense, although I hesitate to use that word, being from Ontario.

The hon. Edmond Blanchard, minister of finance for New Brunswick, said:

I want to reiterate New Brunswick's full support for this initiative.

Does that sound like a maybe? Does that sound like he has some doubts? It is pretty clear.

Here is one the NDP should make a phone call on right now to try to find out how this could have possibly happened. The minister of finance for the province of Saskatchewan, the seat of socialism, the home of Tommy Douglas, the founding province of the CCF and the NDP. It cannot get any better than this. I quote the minister of finance, Eric Cline, who said:

As I have indicated previously, we are generally supportive of the proposed agency since it provides an opportunity to create a more effective and efficient organization for all taxpayers.

NDP members should talk to their own people and find out that all provinces support this federal initiative.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that makes me nervous about speaking in support of this bill is that I understand many members of the Reform Party are going to support it. Whenever I see that happen I have to take a second look. I have done that.

In spite of the fact that it appears some members opposite, perhaps Conservatives and Reformers, see the logic in this bill, I would like to correct the record. Very seldom have I heard so much misrepresentation by so few to so many on the facts surrounding this bill.

The first issue I would like to address is the point made by one of the speakers for the NDP on the issue of closure. The member argues that the big bad government is bringing down the hammer. The fact is, as members know, this is a vote on second reading.

[Canadian National Institute For The Blind, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind was recently judged by a court of its peers when it was recognized as the role model organization of the year by a renowned panel from the International Blindness Community and was awarded the prestigious SAP Stevie Wonder Vision Award in that category.

The Stevie Wonder Vision Award includes a $235,000 prize and was created to raise awareness and spur the development and distribution of technology solutions to enable blind and visually impaired persons to actively participate in the business community.

This award is further evidence of the dedication with which the CNIB provides rehabilitation services for blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind Canadians across the country, including at the CNIB Halton-Peel district office in Mississauga.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all members to join me in extending heartfelt congratulations and best wishes to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

[Labour, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, construction trade labour groups are anxiously awaiting the government to deliver on its commitment to implement the fair wage schedule.

On behalf of the Minister of Labour could the government House leader tell the House what is the status of this important government initiative and when it will be implemented?

[The Late Frank Dowling, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on September 29, at the age of 84, Frank Dowling died at Credit Valley Hospital of complications from heart disease and cancer.

Mr. Dowling was the first mayor of the town of Streetsville, a distinct community within my riding and the city of Mississauga. He lived in Streetsville all his life and served the community as an elected official and volunteer.

First elected to the village council in 1948, he became the first deputy reeve in 1956 and then reeve in 1958. When Streetsville became a town in 1962, Mr. Dowling was elected mayor. His efforts ensured that Streetsville maintained its unique character despite being amalgamated into the city of Mississauga in 1974.

Always the community activist, he served as president of the Streetsville Lion's Club and director of the Peel Children's Aid Society.

Mr. Dowling was a compassionate and dedicated person. He was an honest man who truly cared about others and his community. He will be missed by many.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a very direct answer. The only people in jeopardy of being charged with anything are RCMP members. They are the only people who are being investigated, examined and whose conduct at the APEC hearing is being questioned. Not one of the students is under any cloud or suspicion of wrongdoing. Not one of them requires legal protection to prevent a charge from occurring.

In a democracy when someone in the law enforcement business is being challenged, accused of wrongdoing or is subject to potential criminal activity or criminal charges down the road, I would have assumed that members opposite would be concerned about protecting their rights. This would happen at any level of policing and I would have thought Reformers of all people would have supported this.

The only rights the opposition wants to protect is its rights to make this an issue that does not exist. The students do not need legal counsel. The RCMP may if the findings of the commission lead to some kind of criminal charge.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how about the Reform member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby who claimed that the court challenges program I referred to “only serves as a taxpayer supported platform for radical feminists, the gay and lesbian agenda and other social engineering groups”.

Does the member feel the same way about providing taxpayer supporter lawyers to every complainant who comes before the complaints commission?

Canadians know that the Reform Party's posturing on constitutional rights is nothing more than an attempt to score false political points. They know that this party called to have the charter of rights abolished. I do not know why I always wind up with quotes from the member for Wild Rose. He said on January 17 in the Calgary Herald “we should scrap the whole thing”. That is their idea of protecting civil rights. The issue is not laughable, they are.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Then I suspect, Mr. Speaker, you will be just as generous in interpreting what I am about to say because there are very clearly some people misleading the Canadian public on this issue.

The hon. member just spoke about this being a political game. It is absolutely clear that is exactly what this is. To see the the unholy alliance lining up is really quite remarkable.

I refer to November 1985 when the member for Burnaby—Douglas described Bill C-65, which established the public complaints commission, as taking us out of the dark ages. Those are his words. Today that same member is trying to marginalize the public complaints commission. He is trying to suggest that in some obscure way this commission is unfair. It is clearly remarkable to see members opposite, lawyers opposite, standing up and simply fighting for money for lawyers.

The young lawyer who represented the students and who walked out with them claimed that he had fees in excess of $80,000. I would like to see the dockets. I would like to examine the billings. What is going on here? This is not a court of law. The members opposite know that.

The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party made reference to the fact that inquiries in the past had intervener funding provided. She used the example of the Dubin inquiry. Let us talk about that. Canadians know what that was. That was the alleged Ben Johnson affair, the investigation into the use of drugs by athletes. There were accusations. There were charges. The inquiry is named after Chief Justice Dubin. He sat in a judicial inquiry role. He had people who were accused of breaking the law come before him. Of course there would be legal representation for someone who was accused of breaking the law.

This is not a judicial inquiry. The Canadian public understands that, in spite of the nonsense and the rhetoric that goes on around here about their poor rights being taken away.

It is amazing to see members from the Reform Party stand up as great champions of human rights. It is really quite remarkable. This is the party that has repeatedly told this government to get rid of the court challenges program. It has called for that. The question which should be on the minds of Canadians, recognizing the the court challenges program provides assistance to people involved in a court procedure, not simply a commission, is how can this party claim that there is no need to provide legal funding for disadvantaged individuals and groups involved in actual litigation and now turn around and claim that we need special funding for a public complaints commission.

What is the commission? This public complaints commission was set up to receive complaints from the public about the actions of the RCMP. Members know that. But it is in the interests of the members in the opposition to try to mark up the Prime Minister or the government. The proof that this is a political game and a political football is here. If we look at the photograph in the Toronto Star Thursday, October 15, under the headline “Students quit APEC inquiry”, the byline says: “Stage Walkout: Two members of the Raging Grannies lead APEC demonstrators Jonathan Oppenheim and Garth Mullins out of RCMP commission hearings in Vancouver yesterday”. If we look carefully at the photograph we see behind one of the students the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. Was he advising these students? Was he counselling them?

The Reform member does not seem to get the point. The difference quite clearly is that this is politically staged. He is virtually walking out arm and arm with the students. He is giving them advice. He is encouraging them to leave. Then he gets the grannies to walk out in front. It is a wonderful photo op. Do they think the Canadian people are stupid? They can see what is going on. They can see that they are abusing the system attempting to create some issue. It is scandal envy. They sees the press and the Republicans.

The Reform Party gets all its advice and policies from south of the border. We all know that. It sees the scandal, the media attention and everything going on with President Clinton. Reformers imagine getting the Prime Minister subpoenaed to appear in front of a commission. They want to twist this around to try to create some kind of false sense of scandal.

Should we simply believe that rhetoric or perhaps would it be more appropriate to believe the latest witness reported in the media who came to the commission? This is University of British Columbia Professor Chris Gallagher. Should we believe him? He said: “It seems there was no other alternative. From my perspective it appeared that pepper spray was used where it had to be”.

I do not know if Gallagher is right. What we want to see happen here is have the public complaints commission do its job. This is not a court of law. This is not a judicial inquiry. The students have been charged with nothing. We are not talking about their legal rights being in jeopardy. They are witnesses. They have been asked to come forward and tell this commission, duly established by parliament in 1986, in their own words and based on their memory what happened.

Mr. Gallagher who was a witness within 45 meters of the actual events describes how a fence was torn down and students were clamouring to get over the fence. He goes on to describe how there was no punching, no kicking and no physical activity in the sense of hitting any of these demonstrators. They used pepper spray. I do not know if it is appropriate to use this. I am not a commissioner on the complaints commission.

However, the feeding frenzy that is going on over here is totally laughable. If the opposition had any idea how foolish it looks in attempting to portray this as some kind of White House, oval office scandal, it is absolute nonsense.

This commission has integrity and an international reputation for fairness and for examining the issues. It has paid counsel available to advise and to ensure that witnesses are not intimidated and that their rights are protected.

I submit to this House and to the Canadian people that what we see here is purely opposition politics, tactics that perhaps I am not totally unfamiliar with having spent time in opposition in the Ontario legislature, but based on absolute nonsense and no facts. Let the commission do its job.

I reiterate that these students are not before a judge, not before a court of law and not in jeopardy of being charged for having their legal rights violated in any way whatsoever.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we hear chirping that that was a poor answer. The answer was bang on. I find it particularly interesting to have the member for Burnaby—Douglas say in this House, Mr. Speaker allowed it to stand on the record, that the former speaker was misleading this House. I did not think that was appropriate.

[Scholarships Named After Olympic Athletes, October 7th, 1998]

I do not know about that. Probably in the past that might have been true, thinking back to some of the member's predecessors like Tommy Douglas and some of the folk I knew quite well on a personal basis through my family connections. I will not go into disparaging remarks about the member opposite in relation to his level of talent.

While I believe his heart is in the right place in trying to come up with a plan that would establish a scholarship fund named after Canadians of which we are all proud, I believe in typical fashion his head is in the wrong place. The reason is that New Democrats very seldom take into account the economic impact of motions they put forward.

I give him credit that he suggested wrongly and in a partisan and political manner the way in which this might be funded. I do not believe he has done his homework. If he wants to bring forward a debate on whether or not those credits should be allowed for people investing in their children's education wherever the education may be, perhaps that is what he should do. Perhaps he could hear from the families making the investment to support their children in attaining higher education and higher levels of athletic excellence in some instances south of the border.

Very often we tend to have eight months of winter and four months of bad skating in Canada. There is a need at times for athletes to train in warmer climates. Therefore they go south to train at facilities which are not available here. Unless they are built indoors at a tremendous cost in most instances to the local taxpayer, those facilities are not available.

It is not as simple as the member opposite in the New Democratic Party would have it. He bashes big corporations and American institutions or the government, which NDPers attempt to do on an ongoing basis.

The Government of Canada does a number of things to assist athletes. During the last fiscal year under the athlete assistance program some 900 high performance athletes received financial support totalling more than $7.25 million. The taxpayer is supporting elite athletes in their attempts to improve their success rate, to bring home the gold, the silver and the bronze.

While we all revel in the success of our achievers who bring home some form of medal, is it not equally important to recognize those who compete, who try, who are a part of our team and perhaps do not succeed to the level where they bring home a medal?

There is a real danger of elitism if we are not careful in recognizing that our entire Olympic team should be supported. It should clearly be supported by all parliamentarians in all parties from all parts of the country. That has not been the case in the past.

The government has supported athletes to the tune of $7.25 million. Athletes receive living and training allowances, depending on the success and performance level, ranging from $185 up to as much as $810 per month. That can be a pretty major amount of money to assist an athlete who is training and working toward an education.

Other forms of scholarships exist which I will go into momentarily. The awards under the athlete assistance program are practical awards. They support the worthy. While the highest individual amounts awarded go to top Olympic and world championship performers, the largest number of awards go to athletes who have the potential to excel in high performance sport. That does not mean they are fortunate enough to be carrying a medal around their neck, but they have the potential to succeed.

I noted a story the other night which I believe was on CTV. I forget the name and I apologize to the individual. A young athlete was striving to make the national team as a diver. This is the kind of excellence. His parents were fundraising $12,000 to assist him in achieving his goal of making the national team and eventually the Olympic team. It is an extraordinary challenge for a family to undertake.

There are opportunities for fundraising. In spite of the comments of the members from the left spectre of the New Democratic Party, corporate Canada supports Olympic athletes. It supports young people trying to achieve greatness and trying to do better, whether to excel in the Olympics or to excel in sports in their home communities.

We also support them through Canada's millennium scholarship fund which was established in the last budget. It will award more than 100,000 scholarships annually to full time and part time students based on financial need and merit, not based on their ability to leap a bar, swim a course or play a particular game.

I support assisting our athletes, but to put in place a new level of scholarship without any concern about the cost to the taxpayers is more typically irresponsible NDP rhetoric. The member opposite has much to be proud of about the athletes in his province of Saskatchewan. All Canadians share that pride.

The member should take a look at the numbers and realize the government is supporting Olympic athletes and post-secondary education efforts on behalf of all students in Canada. As a result I am unfortunately unable to support the motion put forward by the member.