Steve Mahoney

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a change I thought that was a fairly thoughtful question from a member of the Reform Party. I appreciate the question.

The point I am trying to raise is not to muddy the waters at all. The point I am trying to make is that had they chosen the issue of a judicial decision for debate on whether the parliamentary prerogative should prevail over the judiciary, that is one debate I think we could have in this place. I know where I would come down. I would come down clearly on the separation of the two houses.

However, they have tied it into the other issue. They are acting like school boys in the fifties with a Playboy magazine inside the textbook in the school and snickering. They are tying it into the sexual orientation issue instead of dealing with it on the basis that it should be dealt with.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to retract it. It was not meant in any way to be cheap. It was simply in reference to the last time we had a debate in this place when that gentleman and I got fairly heated with one another.

Do not be too sensitive. I withdraw the remark. I agree that it has no relevance here.

Let me go back to what I was saying. It is a three-part motion. If the party was being in the slightest bit honest about what it wants to attempt here it would not couch the initial part which deals with its opinion that federal legislation should not be altered by judicial rulings. Then it puts it together with the definition of “spouse” in the Rosenberg decision. The third part is about the right of appeal.

There was a bit of a Freudian slip by one of the members opposite. When he was reading the entire motion, the Reform member, and forgive me, I forget his riding, said on the third part that the government should immediately “repeal”, not appeal, the decision. The motion reads “the government should appeal”. It is the member opposite who said, in a rather interesting mistake, that the government should repeal the Rosenberg decision. That mistake tells me a lot. That mistake, and I assume it is a mistake and was not said intentionally, really underlines the true feeling of the Reform Party, which is that parliament should simply have the right when it does not like a judge's decision to repeal it.

It is astounding that the Reform Party, which so often wraps itself in the veil of liberty and the protection of freedom for all, would want to give any government, other than its own which we know we will never see, that kind of power. Think about the ramifications.

We could stand in this place and say we do not like a decision that was made by any court in the land and if we could get the support of enough of our colleagues we could overturn the decision. It would lead to anarchy.

I do not like to use extreme terms because Reform members try to pretend that when we do that we are painting them as something they are not. But they are not thinking logically about the impact of turning that kind of power over to a group of men and women which could change every three, four or five years.

Look at the demographics of change now. We have what is referred to as Canada's pizza parliament, with five different parties. There are regional interests. The interests of the people in the west are going to be different than the interests of the people in Ontario. We all know that the interests of the people who the Bloc purports to represent are different than the interests of the majority in this place.

This system is based on the separation of parliamentary procedure and the judiciary. To put them together would be very dangerous.

In the United Kingdom I was talking to some British parliamentarians not long ago who are looking at actually writing a charter of rights. They do not have one. The people from Westminster who founded the democratic parliamentary system do not have a written constitution. This country had to go to them to get its Constitution and they never had one. They do not have a charter of rights. They are looking at putting one together.

The member opposite asked my colleague why we do not understand that the judge is rewriting law. What they fail to understand is that the judge is interpreting law. That is the judge's job, based on the charter of rights and the Constitution. That is what they get so excited about. They want good old “I will get my six guns on and I am going to change the law”. That is what they want. That is not the way this country has been built.

The Reform Party talks about power to the unelected. When it comes down to judicial matters which require someone with tremendous experience of the law to understand the impact they will have on people, frankly, I have a lot more confidence in the judges in this country than I do in members of the Reform Party. To turn that kind of authority or power over to this place is just not realistic.

We can debate the impact of certain decisions on society.

I mentioned that this motion was broken down into three areas. The Reform Party would have judges elected the way they do in the United States. That is not on. That is not the kind of policy Canadians want. They do not want someone sitting at the bar making a decision based on their chances of getting re-elected. They want them sitting on the bench based on what the proper decision is, based on the laws of this land, and based on constitutional rights and the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is curious that they would wrap this issue of judicial accountability into the issue of the definition of same sex benefits or spousal benefits.

I have never believed that one get rights because of sexual orientation. I also do not believe one should lose them. I do not believe the country is built on the principles of being able to say because one is different one does not get this right and someone else does. That is not what Canada is about.

In the simplistic mentality and jargon of members of the Reform Party that is exactly the kind of system they would be creating. If they were truly interested in reform of the judiciary, why would they pick this decision instead of others?

I heard a member opposite talking about the immigration minister having a right to appeal. That is exactly the point. The minister has the right to appeal, not repeal but appeal, just like Canadians. It is amazing. It makes us equal in this place. We can appeal that decision. We can then change the law if we want to write new law and it will be interpreted by the courts based on that new law, our constitution and our charter.

I cite an example from the Daily Mail in London, England. I referred earlier to the U.K. which has decided to change the way it deals with fraud, people who commit fraud when trying to get into the U.K. It has turned it around from some cases which took 10 years to get through a judiciary process and otherwise to doing it now in seven days. We can do that. Parliament has the power to do that.

Judges make decisions about asylum seekers that a number of us do not like. It has happened where members on this side of the House do not like it any more than those on the other side of the House. Should we simply say that is it and overrule the judge? That would create an absolute catastrophe in a bureaucracy. It would be a frightening scenario that would leave it to the subjective minds of people who perhaps are going into an election, are unsure of their footing and do not have a history or knowledge steeped in the law.

This is dangerous. This is very dangerous ground. Reformers in my view are doing nothing more than pretending to want to change the judiciary while highlighting their concerns over issues relating to sexual orientation. If we separate them and have debate in this place on both issues I would have no difficulty, but trying to cloud one with the other is less than dishonest. It is hypocritical.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member for Wild Rose not to have a heart attack this afternoon during this debate.

This is really a three-part motion. The first part deals with the Reform Party's attitude toward judges, how they are appointed and what powers they should have. The second part deals with the definition of “spouse” and the whole issue of—

[National Parks Act, June 8th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-419, an act to amend the National Parks Act and other acts in consequence thereof (Canada Parks).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill, the enactment of which amends the National Parks Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and replaces the term national park with the term Canada park.

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

[Reform Party Of Canada, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is worried about its dropping membership numbers and the impact it will have on its ability to fundraise. This is at a time when it is supposed to be attracting busloads of new members to its so-called united alternative campaign.

But fear not. At its convention last week the party announced a bold new strategy to address this problem. Just like K-Tel records, Reform is offering free giveaways to entice Canadians to join the party.

Buy three memberships and get an additional one absolutely free. Even better, Reform says “Act now and we will give you discounts for a stay at the Travelodge or a free trial subscription to an open-minded publication like Alberta Report ”.

I can only imagine what is next. Buy a Reform membership and get a free Ginsu steak knife or a can of spray-on hair, or maybe a copy of the Reform Party platform entitled “Hits of the Fifties”.

The Reform Party will soon realize that gimmicks do not sell—

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the NDP solution to everything in the world is simply to spend more. “The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest”.

Would the member be surprised that the quote is from one of his gurus, the Hon. Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, a Labour prime minister who has finally come around to realize that you do not solve all the problems in the world by throwing more money at them.

That is what the NDP would do. That is what I saw them do in five years. Talk about catastrophic, he should have been in the Ontario legislature under Bob Rae for five years. I could show some catastrophes there. That is their solution, spend more.

It does not work anymore; a new reality. You must run surpluses, pay your bills and build a better country. That is what we are doing.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Harris could be called an anarchist, perhaps, not a separatist.

To respond to the member, the final point that I could not make does respond. The employment insurance commission and its actuary have recommended that the government maintain a substantial surplus in the fund to prevent the need to raise premiums in the event of a recession. That 10th and final point is very important.

I am sure there were people who did not vote for the hon. gentleman and they should not be disenfranchised. If they truly believe in democracy they should not have members travelling around the world under the guise of representing parliament telling people in other parts of the world that they want to separate so they could have a more democratic society. That is absolutely outrageous.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Listen to the member from the NDP. I am going to get to the NDP even though we are addressing the Bloc's motion. I think the NDP's position in all of this should be aired publicly so that we can see exactly what its solutions are.

This is really an attack on the success of this government.

How can we possibly be running a surplus when we have been reducing premiums? The NDP would probably shout their solution, but the reality is because the economy has never been in better shape. The reality is that unemployment has been reduced from 11% to 8%. In fact, as all members know, when this government took power in 1993 it inherited an unemployment insurance premium plan that was at $3.07 for every $100 of income. Today it is down at $2.70. We have reduced the premiums.

How does it work? Premiums are reduced, which means there is lower revenue, but there is more of a surplus. I think the equation is simple. There has been a successful reform of unemployment insurance to make it employment insurance.

I do not really consider employment insurance to be a social program. I know it is referred to as that. The NDP, of course, would say that we should just jack up the premiums. That would put more of a burden on business which, at the end of the day, would cost jobs. We all know that. But I do not consider it to be a social program. Welfare is a social program and an important one for people who need that assistance.

We could say that our health care system is a social program. But to me employment insurance is not unlike workers' compensation at the provincial level. There is a premium and for that there is coverage. It is more of a business plan.

In this country if, through no fault of their own, a person loses their job, the company downsizes or it is seasonal employment, whatever the reason, this national government will stand behind them to help them survive and to help with retraining. It is not done to the extent that the NDP would do it. The NDP would just give everything away.

One of the things I find interesting about this is that we are actually debating government policy in a motion put forward by the Bloc. The wording is outrageous. It tries to say that it is catastrophic. It is just nonsense.

I was sitting here thinking about Bloc members. Why are they here? Why are they in this place? It is really quite amazing. They are putting forward issues on government policy when we all know why they are here. They are here to tear the government apart. They are here to tear the country apart. That is why they are here. That is their mandate. That is their goal.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry recently made a speech in the United States. He explained the reason the Bloc wants to separate from what the Americans were saying is the greatest country in the world. The Americans were having some difficulty understanding how a party which had been elected democratically to the House of Commons could actually be travelling around the world advocating the break-up of this country.

The Americans are pretty straightforward. They are straight shooters. It is pretty clear to them that they would not allow that in their government. They would not allow that in their democracy.

The member was making a speech. He said that the reason they want to separate from Canada is that they want to have a more democratic society. Can you imagine a society more democratic than Canada, which would actually allow a party to be elected which is subversive and which wants to tear the country apart? How could we possibly get more democratic than that? That is their agenda. We know that.

I find it interesting that the Bloc members would put forward a motion today that deals with an employment insurance fund which they do not want anything to do with anyway. Or do they think they can separate from the country and still tap into a national employment insurance fund? Maybe that is the game. Maybe that is the thinking. They can keep their national jobs if they separate from Canada. It is truly amazing.

This attack on the success of the government by a party that wants to destroy the country is sending a message to Canadians. Obviously the opposition parties are out of things to find the government at fault for, so now they are starting to attack the things the government does best. What do they want?

They say there is no surplus. What did they say when there was a deficit? They said that it was horrible. Insurance premiums were too high and there was a deficit in the fund. It was real then.

I heard a Reform member say that there is no money in the fund, that it is just a line entry. When it was overdrawn there was sure as heck real money missing from the pot, so why can they not now admit that there is a surplus?

Again I use the analogy of “Dumb and Dumber”. I think Reformers were making the sequel to “Dumb and Dumber” in London on the weekend. I will leave it to the imagination of the House to determine who was dumb and who was dumber. I will be anxiously awaiting the release of that wonderful new movie. Maybe one of the members opposite will play Jim Carey in the sequel.

I have compiled what I consider to be the top 10 facts concerning what this government has put into place and succeeded with in terms of employment insurance reform.

Fact number one: In 1997 premiums were cut by $1.4 billion. Since we have taken office the premiums have been cut by $4.5 billion a year. We have reduced premiums four times in the last four years, from a high of $3.07 per $100 of insurable earnings under the Tory government to $2.70. It is even lower than the $2.80 forecast in 1997.

Fact number two: Last year this Liberal government under this Minister of Finance had the second largest reduction in employment insurance premiums in the history of the country.

Fact number three: $2 billion is available to the provinces.

Fact number four: 69% of part time workers are women and under employment insurance approximately 270,000 women in part time jobs have their work insured for the first time.

Fact number five: The 1998 budget contained a premium holiday for young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24.

Fact number six: This new measure builds upon the new hires program that ends in 1999. All firms are eligible for this program.

Fact number seven: These and other measures will save $1.4 billion in payroll taxes for workers and businesses in 1998 alone.

Fact number eight: The budget builds on the youth service Canada program currently funded at $50 million per year.

Fact number nine: It is true that EI revenues are important to achieving our fiscal targets, but employment insurance premiums are part of government revenues and benefits are part of government expenditures. You cannot flip-flop and have it either way.

Fact number 10—

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am going to strive mightily to focus my remarks through you. I know that I sometimes tend to get into a dialogue with members across the way, but I will try to avoid that if I can.

I find what is going on here to be quite remarkable. This is an attack on our success. The normal tactic of an opposition party is to attack the failures, the shortcomings, the shortfalls. The normal approach—

[Reform Party Of Canada, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every so often the Reform Party tries to put a new face on its tired old policies in the hopes that somehow it will be able to attract new members.

With its membership growth stagnated, its latest attempt is called united alternative but the big problem is that it looks exactly like the Reform Party. It will have the same leader, the same so-called principles and the same policy as the Reform Party. Some alternative. Canadians considered the Reform alternative in the last election and they turned thumbs down.

I cannot say it any better than an Ontario delegate to the convention who was quoted as saying that he wondered why anybody from another party would attend a Reform organized assembly knowing in advance the party's principles were untouchable and its leader would desperately try to remain leader.

The vast majority of Canadians know that no matter what kind of sheep's clothing the party wraps itself in, Reform's wolves are not what Canada needs.