Steve Mahoney

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss this bill which will actually implement some of the items that were announced in the budget.

I listened to members opposite earlier today, in particular those of the Reform Party, as they ranted about the fact that the government passed time allocation to get some of these items through. Yet time allocation has been used three months almost to the day after the budget was introduced. The budget was brought down by our finance minister on February 24. Here we are on May 25 dealing with this bill that will implement the policies that were announced.

Members opposite shake their heads as if they do not understand. Why do they think we have to bring in time allocation? This bill is part of the government's policy and program. If they had their way they would simply delay and obstruct. They would simply be negative. I do not hear anything positive coming from over there.

I do not understand what members opposite have against a scholarship fund being established to help students go to school. Explain that to me. What do they have against students and higher education? What do they have against allowing all Canadians to have continuing education?

The NDP members chirping from left wing would wipe out all tuition. They would say that everything is free, that life is just a bowl of cherries. They have their heads in the clouds. They have no idea of the fiscal realities.

This bill shows that for the first time in over 40 years we have a government that is fiscally responsible. We have a government that has balanced the books in spite of the ranting from the left. We have a government that has eliminated the deficit and has finally put this country on the route to financial prosperity.

One of the things that will help to build a prosperous Canada is access to education. Yet I hear members talk against greater access to education.

I know about opposition politics. I spent five years opposing an NDP government in Ontario. I understand that it is fundamentally the opposition's job to be negative. It is difficult to get up every morning, to look in the mirror and to ask “How can I be negative today?” But they do it. It is their job. Although I did hear the member for Burnaby—Douglas congratulate our fisheries minister in question period today for his latest decision on coho salmon. It took a lot of courage for him to do that and I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his courage to stand and make a positive statement. In the one year I have been in this place that is the first time I have heard an opposition member make a positive, constructive statement about something.

They cannot tell me that every bill and policy that this government or any government proposes is without merit. It is simply not possible.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, out of all the members in this place, I want to say that the member for Saint John is one whose opinion I respect. I believe her when she says she is here to fight for the things that she believes in. I do not doubt her sincerity whatsoever.

However, I would ask her if she would not mind making a call to the leader of the Ontario Conservative Party to suggest that the next time he makes a deal or sends his minister of health out to make a deal that he try to live by the deal. Tell him that he should not sign a deal if he is not happy with it. He should not come on board one day and make a deal and then go to a press conference and change everything. It is not fair to anybody involved. I am sure the member agrees with that.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the Reform Party is about one speaker too late. I think the hon member was referring to a former speaker's remarks. I did not make any comment with regard to Russia. But let me make a comment with regard to the Reform Party, the oh so pompous men and women of compassion who are going to solve all the problems.

Where was the same Reform compassion when its members said they would cut $3.5 billion from social assistance, $3 billion from old age security and $5 billion from the employment insurance program? Where was their compassion when they said they would cut $3 billion from provincial equalization payments and where was their compassion when they said they would dismantle the Canada pension plan and ignore the future of Canadians? That is not a party of compassion. That is a party that is misleading the Canadian people on this issue and many—

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that this young lady happened to be delivering the talking points. I did not even have them when I spoke. I was not referring to them. I was speaking from here.

It is interesting. Every time somebody gets up and says something the hon. member from York South—Weston does not agree with, he rises with his chest puffed out, or maybe that is the normal size of it. He rises in this place and challenges everyone in the House to a debate. I suspect it is because he has nothing else to do, being the leader, caucus, cabinet and entire representative of a party of one. We do not need lectures from that member. To use the analogy of a hockey team, he is one who would play on our hockey team and consistently shoot the puck into our own net. How long would he be kept on the ice? How long would he even be allowed to sit on the bench? He would be booted off and told to go have a nice day.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to have the opportunity to put some comments on the record to perhaps challenge some of the misinformation and myths that have been coming from the opposite side.

I want to start by saying that I came to a revelation this morning when I picked up the Toronto Star and read an article by Thomas Walkom. Thomas is an editorial writer, an opinion writer for the Star . I worked across the hall from him when I was at Queen's Park.

I generally find him to be philosophically on the side of the left wing in the entire country, certainly provincially. While I very seldom agreed with Mr. Walkom, I always respected his writing ability and his ability to see through what the issue was all about.

I want to share some thoughts. We talk about the victims, the deal, that it is not good enough, that we should spend more and if we spend too much it will hurt health care. We talk about all these different issues on all sides of the House.

However I think Thomas Walkom really summed up what this debate and this issue are all about aside from crass politics and manipulation of some tragic victims. He says “Most of all, it is about what societies are willing to do for all of those, not just hepatitis C victims, who suffer crippling illnesses”. He goes on to say “If negligence alone is to be the criterion then federal health minister Allan Rock was on solid ground when he talked of limiting compensation to those victims infected between 1986 and 1990”.

The theory, Thomas says, albeit it developed with the advantages of 20:20 hindsight, was that Canada erred in not following the U.S. lead, which I hear my U.S. supportive friends in the Reform Party talking about all the time. He goes on to say that once Canada did start to test the liability ended.

I think this is really the debate that has to happen. Thomas Walkom says that what we should be talking about is a comprehensive public, no-fault, universal disability insurance helping those who for whatever reason find themselves levelled by any debilitating illness.

That does not necessarily mean that we would simply support that. If we think about the debate of that issue I suggest the costs of a complete no-fault health insurance disability plan would be quite astronomical, but we should debate it. It should be a public debate, no question. I hear members opposite saying that the negotiations that are about to take place over this issue should be held in public. The member for York—South Weston says we should have it with the public. That is a terrific idea because then we would know what people agreed to.

This motion by the NDP is a good motion and. It says that the House urge the government to press for the invitation of representatives of the hepatitis C society to be a part of the negotiations. They would be witnesses. That would be interesting if we had impartial witnesses at the last round of negotiations. We would know what the Minister of Health for the province of Quebec said at the table. We would know what the minister of health, the Hon. Elizabeth Witmer, said. I have great respect for her. I worked closely with her in the Ontario legislature. We were both critics of the NDP government which was a rather easy job to do. I got to know Elizabeth and I have great respect for her.

If it was on television, all the better. We would know what was being said. What do we have here? We have a deal that would never have surfaced if not for the leadership of the federal Minister of Health. The former minister of health for the province of Ontario, the hon. Jim Wilson, said see you in court. That was his response.

What do members think Reform Party members would offer in terms of compensation? Imagine their bleeding hearts? I do not even know if they would go so far as to say see you in court. They would say let 'em eat cake. That is exactly what they would say. We know what Reformers would offer as compassion if they had the responsibility to government this place. It would be nothing. The hypocrisy that we have seen over this issue has no bounds. It is absolutely astounding.

We hear from members opposite that we should listen to the people. I have talked to residents. I have had a couple of calls. I had about 400 calls on the seal hunt issue, but I have had a couple of calls on this issue from very seriously concerned people, some of them ill, some of them family members of people who are ill, some of them just trying to understand. When I return those calls they do understand the impact of a universal no-fault health care plan that would simply provide compensation for all victims.

I made a statement in the House a few months ago about Kyle Martin. Kyle Martin was a five year old boy whose father took him to the emergency at Credit Valley hospital. Kyle had a fever. He was very uncomfortable. They spent several hours in emergency until finally a doctor got around to seeing them.

Members opposite would just blame the federal government for something like that, but in our province they have made choices. In fact, they have just recognized that they had made damaging choices because they poured more money back into the health care system for emergencies.

If we want a universal health care system, let me tell members what would happen. Kyle was diagnosed. Once they got to look at him after several hours, they realized they had a serious crisis on their hands. They ordered a helicopter to take him to the sick children's hospital. Twenty-four hours later Kyle Martin was dead.

I talked to his father. Some members in this House, and I thank them publicly, have contributed to the Kyle Martin fund to help a doctor at the sick children's hospital in his research into streptococcus and what causes it and how it can be treated.

Here is the message to the Martin family. What do you say to a mother and father who have lost their five year old son? Do we turn around and simply say federal taxpayers are going to compensate them for that loss? Or do we say they have access to the courts, a right to sue and should sue the hospital and the attending physician and whomever their lawyers advise them to sue? A court case will occur, a decision will be rendered, and if they win there is insurance in place to cover that kind of thing.

What we want to do is wipe out the court system entirely in this country and go to a broad based no-fault system. I do not know who is going to pay for that. I do not know how we are going to fund it and make it sustainable.

I think this motion should be supported and nobody needed to whip me to vote for the Minister of Health. Let me say that to the member for York South—Weston. I wish I had another 10 minutes to talk about that particular problem and how he likes to play politics with victims and games he plays like this.

The fact is nobody needed to whip me. I support the Minister of Health in this. He is the only politician who has shown true leadership from the start in this country. Now that the provinces have come to their senses, we will go back and cut a deal that will be fair for all concerned.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to some of the comments, but also to put on the record my personal feelings and, I believe, the feelings of the vast majority of my constituents and the feelings of the Ontario caucus.

As the member for Egmont pointed out, I do not know where the member for Burin—St. George's gets his information, but the Ontario caucus is solidly behind the efforts and the concerns in looking for an opportunity to provide assistance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, all of Atlantic Canada.

This is an issue that really defines the country of Canada. I say that because we are a country that wants to share from sea to sea to sea all the benefits, windfalls and financial strengths. We want to share all the good things about Canada with one another.

There are many examples of what I often refer to as gate-equalization. In 1949 when Newfoundland joined Confederation there was a pact. There was a reason for doing it. The hon. Joey Smallwood spoke about the strength in unifying and joining Canada, becoming part of this great nation, and the benefits that would be attributed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member for Burin—St. George's made some excellent points. It is interesting that the member for Acadie—Bathurst as well as the previous speaker spoke in support of the bill, and yet the games continue to be played. Why do we not get on with it? The opposition members insist on calling quorum. For what purpose? To delay the passage of the bill? They know full well, and the people at home know, that members do not sit all day in this chamber. They are in committee. They are in meetings. They are in their offices. They are phoning their constituents. Furthermore, it is against the rules in this place for people to make reference to members being absent.

I understand that members opposite have a strategy. They are upset. They like to win certain votes and they have not won, so they have developed a strategy to be disruptive. Frankly, that is not going to solve this problem, as the member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Conservative want to do.

There is support. Strong support. Many of us, myself included, are urging members of cabinet to come up with a solution. I believe that the solution should not just be the son of TAGS. The solution has to be sustainable growth. The solution has to be new opportunities for Atlantic Canada. Why would a guy from central Ontario, Mississauga West, even care about this kind of issue? I can tell members that I honestly believe my constituents care.

When I was in the Ontario legislature I had the opportunity to travel to Newfoundland on a couple of occasions. One of the best experiences my wife and I have ever had was after our public accounts committee had finished its meetings in St. John's, we rented a car and we drove through the Avalon Peninsula. We did the bed and breakfast routine and we got to know the people of the Avalon Peninsula.

Kitty Sullivan's Kitchen is a very famous stop down the coast of the Avalon. We stayed overnight. We talked with Kitty Sullivan about her past, about her husband's life as a fisherman. He had passed away and her two sons were carrying on the family tradition. She has flaming red hair. With tears in her green eyes she talked about growing up in that spectacular part of the world.

I do not know what it was but it created an affinity. Maybe it is my Irish roots. They say on a clear day from Kitty Sullivan's Kitchen you can actually see Ireland. I do not know, maybe you can. It was not a clear day. As we all know, there are not a lot of clear days in that part of the world, but it is a wonderful part of the world.

It is an absolute human tragedy, what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador with the fisheries. Other members have said there is enough blame to go around. Obviously there is. We have to accept our share.

We are the government and we have to come up with a plan. I believe we will. I believe that this government cares about what happens there, but as I said, just making it a son of TAGS is not the solution. There has to be a long term plan.

People in Newfoundland are demonstrating right now. On tax day they have taken over the Revenue Canada building. They know how to make a point in that part of the world. They are making a point. It is a valid point and a real concern.

I want members to know that this member from Ontario cares about what happens in Atlantic Canada. As a national government we have a responsibility to make sure that we look out for Canadians right across this land.

We went around the bottom of the peninsula and up to the top to beautiful communities, Heart's Desire, Heart's Delight, Heart's Content. They are absolutely amazing places. Canadians should go and see Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, I was scheduled in the March break to go with the member for Labrador on a snowmobile trip in Labrador. Unfortunately he took ill. He is back with us now, but he took very seriously ill and we had to postpone the trip.

The reason he asked me to join him was that I had spoken out on an issue that was very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was the lobby campaign headed up by the International Fund for Animal Welfare against the seal hunt which was trying to close down the seal hunt.

Aside from the fact that in a community like mine in Mississauga there are a lot of transplants from Newfoundland and Labrador, I spoke up because of what I saw as misleading information, a lobby campaign funded by American money, a lobby campaign designed to mislead the Canadian public. I received probably 400 phone calls all of them computer generated into my voice mail. That kind of trickery, that kind of deceit, no matter what part of Canada we are from, no matter what party we represent, is not something we should be willing to tolerate.

I spoke out. I wrote a letter to the editor saying that I was astounded. I did it in anger because I was fed up with the misinformation. We talk about the damage to the cod, the damage to the fisheries. Premier Tobin was quoted today. He said in a speech last night at a fundraiser “You know, the seals don't eat at McDonald's or Burger King; they eat fish. They eat a lot of fish”.

There is a seal hunt with five million seals in the herd. There can be no doubt when we have a quota set at 283,000 seals to be harvested out of a herd of five million, seals have to be part of the problem. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand. I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in a couple of newspapers. I will read part of it:

I take strong exception to any group that spreads lies and misinformation to the Canadian people to further its own, somewhat myopic view of the world. The seal hunt is highly regulated and anyone who breaks the law, and I admit there will naturally be some who do, will be charged and dealt with under the full extent of the law. Other law-abiding citizens, who rely on these animals for food, survival and jobs, should be allowed to work at their trade without harassment.

I believe my constituents would agree with that sentiment.

One of the members mentioned in the House that nothing came of the Estai affair. I want to correct the record on a few things.

One of the speakers yesterday made remarks, which I will get to in a moment. Frankly he should know better because the area he represents is Saanich—Gulf Islands. He represents the other end of the country from Newfoundland but definitely represents an area where there is concern about overfishing and everything that goes with that.

The member for Burin—St. George's said that nothing came of the Estai affair. He ridiculed Premier Tobin, called “Captain Canada” by people around the world for his crusade.

I am in the middle of reading the Michael Harris book Lament for an Ocean . It is an interesting book. It details at some length the events which took place when Brian Tobin, then the minister of fisheries for the national government, stood up to the overfishing trawlers from Spain. It details the courage. The book details what went on in cabinet in getting the support which allowed Mr. Tobin to actually use force.

I understand that the member for Burin—St. George's is an opposition politician. I understand he is not of the same party provincially or nationally as Mr. Tobin, but let us give some credit where it is due. He claims nothing came as a result of that effort. The fact is we became an internationally respected nation willing to stand up for the protection of the fishery, willing to stand up to foreign ships taking baby fish in very tiny nets and adding to the destruction of the fish stock. We did stand up and we should be proud of that.

It is most unfortunate that a member in this place from Newfoundland would actually stand up and denigrate those efforts. Did they solve all the problems? Obviously not. This bill will not solve all the problems either but it will go a long way toward putting in place the enforcement mechanism the Canadian Coast Guard needs to be able to board trawlers where it is suspected there have been violations.

I want to correct the record from a debate yesterday by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will quote what he said from the Evening Telegram : “During debate in the House of Commons Wednesday, Saanich—Gulf Islands MP”—I will not name him since I cannot—said Bill C-27 that implements the provisions on straddling stocks is actually more restrictive than current measures in Canadian and international law”.

An official with the department has corrected him in this article. I want to do so on the record in this place. The official said: “There is nothing in the bill that limits our right to board vessels. The powers that are in it are the same powers that are in the agreement. We are only giving ourselves the powers the UN agreement says we can do”.

Bill C-27 is the legislation Canada needs to implement the United Nations agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Some members mentioned that this agreement could apply to salmon. That was another issue put forward yesterday. I do not have a problem with opposition members disagreeing with the government. All I hear is opposition members saying that they support this bill but then they put forward statements that are simply not correct, and they need to be corrected.

Some have said that this could apply to salmon. The intent of this agreement was to strengthen sections of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, that apply to straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks. As an anadromous species, salmon is not covered by these definitions. These people know that, so why would they put out information that they know is false? I guess they are just desperately looking for something negative to say about the government even though they support the bill.

Canada cannot unilaterally change internationally negotiated agreements and add stocks that were not covered by the agreement. As Bill C-27 is an implementation bill, it can only reflect what is in the UNFA.

Some members, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, have also raised concerns about the procedural requirements in Bill C-27 for boarding vessels. I will set the facts straight. The member should know better than to make those comments in this place.

Under Bill C-27 Canadian enforcement officers can board and inspect vessels of states party to the UNFA agreement without first obtaining consent of any foreign state. If a violation to the fishing measures is found, the enforcement officers must notify the flag state. As some members have said, the flag state then has three days to respond to such a notice. During that time period, the enforcement officers remain onboard the ship. They may search and seize, secure, conduct an investigation to obtain any evidence they may need to prove the accusation of a violation.

After the flag state has been notified and given 72 hours, there are three possible scenarios. The member opposite knows it and should have said it.

First, the flag state may respond by consenting to Canada taking additional enforcement action against the vessel. This could include, as occurred in the case of the Estai , bringing the vessel to port to continue the investigation.

Second, if the flag state responds with appropriate measures to investigate and take enforcement action, then the enforcement officer would turn over that vessel to the flag state for further action. If they agree with the allegations or charges, then it only makes sense. The member for Burin—St. George's complained about the cost of putting up the Spanish sailors in Hotel Newfoundland. The second option means that we would not have to do that.

Third, if the flag state does not respond within the three day period, the enforcement officers could take the vessel to port and continue their investigations. We have seen that happen. Canada has the hard-nosed attitude to deal with this. This bill now gives us the teeth to deal with problems on the high seas.

All these procedures apply only to vessels from states that are party to the UNFA and are listed under the CFPA regulations. I want that on the record. For vessels from states that are not party to this agreement, the current provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will continue to be applied. It is very important to remind this House that Bill C-27 must be read with this together. It does not stand on its own.

With the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, this bill is not replacing what we already have. It is an additional tool that Canada can use to stop foreign overfishing of straddling and highly migratory stocks on the high seas.

While I appreciate that there is tremendous passion in their concern for constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would hope opposition members would stop playing games, support this bill and let us get on with the solution.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Come on, be nice.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when Canada's health ministers announced the compensation package for hepatitis C victims they acknowledged that testing was available but not used in Canada between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990. This is the key principle underlining the compensation package.

The Reform Party motion ignores this key principle when it states that the government should “compensate all victims who contracted hepatitis C”. What it is advocating is a no fault insurance scheme for Canada's health care system.

This is a wholly separate issue from the blood system inquiry. It is an issue that should be addressed on its own merits and, quite frankly, this debate has yet to happen.

Health care insurance is a provincial responsibility. I am unaware of any initiatives to establish a no fault insurance scheme for the blood system or health care in general. No fault insurance is not a feature of our health system and should not materialize by default—

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what this government has done in relation to the economy. Our recent budget set out how we have the country on track. We have eliminated the deficit of $42 billion. All that is vitally important to the success of programs that will help eliminate poverty. It will create jobs. That is how we are going to eliminate poverty.

Unlike the members opposite, who appear to be social democrats or socialists en français, we believe in working in partnership with the provinces, with the territories, with the private sector, with trainers and with educational institutions to ensure there are job opportunities for all Canadians. That will eliminate poverty.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with the concern raised in the case of the micro brewery in Quebec. It is ludicrous.

The problem is the beer distribution system in the province of Ontario is fundamentally controlled by the big brewers. That is where we need to resolve the problem. They control the distribution system. The hon. member's micro brewery in the province of Quebec cannot get listed on Brewers Retail. We do not sell it in corner stores and in grocery stores like in other parts of this country. There is a fundamental problem there. The hon. member raises a valid point. Quebec and Ontario should sit down and discuss how we can alleviate that injustice.

The province of Quebec buys over $9 billion more from Ontario businesses than the reverse. We have a very healthy balance of trade. We have a very healthy interest in working with the province of Quebec. We have some room because of that balance of trade. I invite those issues to be put on the table.