Steve Mahoney

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting to hear one of the speakers from the Bloc asking a question of Liberal members. I believe the question was why are you here. I believe that is what I heard him say. I find that an extraordinary question coming from someone from the Bloc. The reality is its own members have questioned the validity of their being in this place because of the results of the last referendum. There has been a suggestion by members from that party that they should just resign, take their ball and go home, which would be just fine with me.

In fairness I must admit I thought the speaker who just finished made some very interesting points. She talked about the success of the Canadian cultural industry.

We have indeed been successful as a government, as a country and as a nation in supporting our cultural exports. Let us take a look at the greatest box office hit I believe in history, Titanic , which featured a Canadian director and the music of the wonderful and talented Céline Dion. One of the biggest stars in Europe is a Canadian, Bryan Adams. We have many things we can be proud of from the point of view of the arts and Canadian culture.

I thought the member actually made some very valid points which sounded a bit to me like she was speaking in support of some of the government programs.

We then get the other extreme. The Bloc members are a bit like chameleons. They change their colours as the mood moves them. They are difficult at times to understand from a logical point of view. I heard a Bloc member this morning say they are democratic socialists. I assume that means they are the NDP en français. It had not occurred to me before but apparently that seems to be their philosophy.

I think what the members of the Bloc need to do and what they should be doing is debating an issue in this place that basically says what kind of a society we want if we are to have an impact on eliminating child poverty.

Child poverty does not happen in a vacuum. Child poverty generally results from family poverty. It seems to be politically more attractive to talk about the children. What about the parents? What about the mothers and fathers working at part time jobs, the working poor in society?

The Reform Party seems to have a solution, broad base tax cuts right across the board so that everybody, particularly its friends, would receive huge tax breaks while the poor it purports to defend would receive minimal or nothing in the form of tax breaks. Reform's solution to child poverty is myopic at best and is simply misguided.

Let me go back to the Bloc and what kind of society we want. Do we want a divided society based on our differences? Do we want a society where we continue to concentrate on the issue of national unity in this great country based on our differences? Of course we have differences. I think the message should be vive la différence et vive le Canada.

If the Bloc would take some of its ideas and put them into practice in terms of constructive debate in this place it might be surprised at some of the support that could arise. I thought some of the debate we have sat through was reasonably well thought out and gave some valid points and concerns.

I think the principle of the motion the young member has put forward, now that he has decided to bring his seat back and join the rest of us, is not a bad principle. The concept is there is a disparity between the rich and the poor and we should strive to eliminate that. There is a problem as it relates to family and child poverty and we should strive to eliminate that.

In my view our government has done a number of things in the last budget with family tax credits, commitments to education and the youth employment strategy. We have done a number of things to help in the area of eradicating poverty. However, it is not enough. I admit that. I think the finance minister and the Prime Minister would admit it is not enough.

When we take it in the context of the overall job of running corporation Canada, this great country, and we are the board of directors, we have to priorize. We have to make commitments to keep the interest rates down, to keep inflation down, with record numbers. Of course the hon. member does not agree. He is giving me the thumbs down. I would not expect the thumbs up from someone whose sole purpose in life is to destroy this wonderful country. If I ever got it I would be nervous.

We cannot even talk about something like globalization or the MAI without hysteria coming out of members opposite, coming out of people like Maude Barlow champing at the bit, demonstrating everywhere, whipping people into a frenzy, putting out false information all over the country and the members opposite using the negotiations around the MAI for their own political purposes. It is unfortunate.

Free trade and globalization are all part of reality. We cannot be isolationists. Members can clap if they want. I have never said anything different. We cannot be isolationists.

The Bloc would like to put borders around its own province and be in isolation. That is what would happen. The number one trading partner for the province of Ontario is the province of Quebec.

I think interprovincial trade is a very important issue. There are barriers that should be eliminated in interprovincial trade. We should be working toward that together as the board of directors of corporation Canada. I think we can move in that direction.

At the same time we cannot ignore that there is a requirement, an obligation in fact, for us to have negotiations with foreign countries. If we see where the Prime Minister is today and has been for the past day or two, there is an interesting problem there. The Americans do not want to sign the MAI because they do not like the fact that we are upset with the Helms-Burton act. They want to be isolationists. They do not mind trading with China. They do not mind trading with a country whose human rights record is undoubtedly and arguably the worst in the world, but they do not want to trade with the little island of Cuba.

Yet we see what our Prime Minister has been able to accomplish in softening the relationship with Cuba, in getting a settlement from the Cuban government for Confederation Life. We have to have these kinds of discussions and negotiations if we are to play on the world economic stage.

We should just settle down. Let us get the MAI document out. We should not be abrogating our labour standards, we should not be abrogating our environmental standards, we should not be abrogating our health and safety requirements in this country. This government would not allow that to happen. But because these things are put on the table we get knee-jerk reactions from people who put blinders on and refuse to even discuss it.

We must have negotiations on globalization, on international trade if we are ever to increase the marketplace for the 30 million people in this great country. We cannot do it all internally. Interprovincial trade is a problem but globalization is here to stay. Canadians should embrace it and have confidence to be able to compete on a world stage in the business community and in the arts and culture.

I have that confidence and I know our government does as well.

[Canadian National Institute For The Blind, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker on March 30, 1918 Captain Edwin Baker, Dr. Sherman Swift and five other blind and sighted Canadians founded the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. For the last 80 years this private voluntary and non-profit organization has provided rehabilitation services for blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind Canadians across the country.

One of the CNIB's most important services is providing visually impaired Canadians with books, magazines, videos and other material in Braille and on audio cassette free of charge through the CNIB library. The library is the country's largest producer of Braille and audio materials.

The CNIB also offers educational scholarships to worthy clients. I congratulate one recent recipient, Kristy Kassie, a client at the CNIB Halton Peel district office who is pursuing post-secondary studies at York University.

I congratulate the CNIB on 80 years of dedicated service to Canadians.

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

The problem is it is going to probably take two years because we have to wait for the renovation. It is not as simple as taking a clock off the wall, but at least it is progress.

One of the things soon learned when becoming a parliamentarian at any level is that you have to be prepared to accept your achievements in small doses. I was pleased in my last session in the Ontario legislature to sponsor a private member's bill that would prohibit young people under the age of 18 from buying lottery tickets. At first blush this was questioned as can they do that now. People were stunned. I remember the premier of the day, Premier Rae, being astounded to find out that there were kids lined up in the corner store playing Pro Line sports. They were actually betting their lunch money on Monday night football or on the outcome of the NHL hockey game. Everyone was astounded to find out it was happening.

The subsequent investigation and publicity took it right across Canada and everyone said the kids should not be able to do that. I think our society really feels that we should not have kids gambling on pro sports in corner stores. That is certainly not the vision of the kind of Canada that I or members in this place would like to see.

That private member's bill was subsequently supported unanimously in the parliament of Ontario and it went through first, second, third reading and royal assent in 16 sessional days. This was a record in the province of Ontario and unheard of in Canada for any private member's bill to receive that kind of attention and success.

I recall as I walked out of the chamber everyone slapping me on the back and congratulating me and my colleagues. My comment to one of them was thank you, but the problem is this appears to be as good as it gets. I really think that is the issue. We come here in numbers of 301 with views, aspirations, goals, visions and with information from our ridings. Perhaps we have different political perspectives on issues of concern to our community but we come here looking for ways to make these issues reality. The system is such that in my respectful submission my experience here is that one can accomplish more through the caucus system than one can through the official system of committees and parliament. I think that is wrong.

The reality is that in the experience of the caucus that I am a part of the government listens to the people in the backbench who are bringing messages and information from their ridings. I have seen numerous examples where policy of this government has been changed by intervention from members in the House of Commons who sit on the backbenches. This is a very positive thing, something we can be proud of and something our constituents should know, but it should go beyond that. There should be an opportunity that goes beyond hoping your name gets pulled out of a drum to introduce private members' bills. If eliminating the motions which my colleague suggested earlier would provide more time for private members' bills then I think that is a very constructive suggestion.

I want to talk about some of the comments I have heard and that are heard from time to time about members suggesting we need to have more concern about member privileges. The word privileges tends to dominate the landscape here in Ottawa. Members are always concerned about their privileges. We had a huge debate because one of the members made disparaging remarks at the Olympics about our flag. We had a huge debate over whether her privileges had been violated. We have other members who stand up from time to time about comments made outside this place, concerned about their privileges.

There is another word that I do not hear enough members in this place talking about and that in my view the standing orders do not address. That word is responsibilities. Along with privileges come responsibilities. When we think of what is going on in Ireland, when we think of war torn countries where their solution is murder and mayhem to political differences, when we realize that the difference between the Prime Minister's desk and the Leader of the Opposition's desk is the distance of two people holding out extended swords and the tips simply touching, when we realize that our weapons are our minds and our ammunition is our words and that in this great country we simply use this institution to put forth those viewpoints, we realize what a cherished responsibility we all have.

I was very disappointed in light of that issue of being responsible to the House of Commons and responsible to the people of Canada because I believe those two issues are intertwined; we cannot show disrespect in this place without showing disrespect for all Canadians.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has made comments that were quoted when he was a parliamentary mission to justify his reasoning for the separation of the province of Quebec, saying that Quebec would be more democratic and more respectful of minority rights than under the Canadian federal system if it separated. That is contempt for this place. That is contempt for this country. It has no place in this chamber or in this great nation.

I think it is unfortunate that in this House our standing rules do not have a mechanism to call that member forward to stand up and be accountable for the remarks he made while on taxpayer expense travelling under the privilege of being a member of this House and denigrating this country and this House and everything we stand for.

Finally, the nonsense I saw yesterday of a 24 year old member of the Bloc standing up and taking his chair out of this place in some kind of a demonstration is just the silliest thing I have ever seen in my days of watching this place. I have a 27 year old who left home recently. He moved out on his own and he had the good sense not to steal the furniture. I would suggest that the member opposite was just grandstanding to try to make a point of some kind. He should realize that maybe in his case we should charge him with theft of chair and maybe we should change the locks. Once a young man leaves home it seems to me that young man should try to find it on his own.

I would hope that we could look at a way to put in place rules in the standing orders to hold all members of this House accountable for their actions, to make them respectful of this place both in the House of Commons and outside when they are on official duties. I would like to see that kind of amendment take place that would bring true dignity and responsibility to Canada's House of Commons.

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear members opposite speak about the need to show respect for this place. In a moment I want to get into some of that and some of what we might describe as antics that have occurred in the House which the House has no ability to deal with and that some members opposite have been perpetrating on the Canadian public.

I am a new member of the House of Commons since the last election but I have some comparisons that I would like to share between this place and the provincial legislature of Ontario.

We have heard speakers talk about the need to make Private Members' Business easier to deal with, the need to bring them forward and make them votable as they say. I certainly concur with all that.

While there is a lot to be said for our parliamentary democratic system, there is some frustration that members on all sides feel when it comes to putting forth ideas and making achievements.

To give an example, when I arrived here I noticed that we use analog clocks in this room. Our speeches are timed to a 10 minute timeframe. We share our time with other members. I suggested to the Speaker that it would be nice to have a digital clock, start at 10 minutes and have it count down to zero in order to avoid the Speaker's having to cut the member off at the end of debate. Interestingly enough, I received a letter from the Speaker saying they have adopted my suggestion. So my first great claim to fame in Ottawa is that we are going to have digital clocks installed.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a fascinating and interesting subject.

One of the members of the Bloc said that party is not in support of one of the proposals that was in the government's Bill C-47 which would establish a new national agency. I understand why they would not be in support of a national agency. They are not in support of the national government. They would like to do away with it all. If the bill had included a suggestion that a provincial agency be established perhaps there would have been more acceptance.

It is fascinating. This bill is almost an anomaly. It is a private member's bill based somewhat on the model of a government bill that was introduced in the last parliament. Basically the same government is now in power and is saying that it is prepared to bring forward a government bill that will address more of the issues of concern that are talked about by members opposite. Yet they want to ignore that and go ahead with this particular bill which seems to be a halfway solution to the concern.

The member for Waterloo—Wellington made a very good point that this bill only deals with two issues of concern that were addressed in Bill C-47. It does not go nearly far enough.

There is an opportunity, if members opposite would just have a little patience, to have a government bill which would have substantially more significance. It could go to committee. We need to hear from Canadians, rather than just presume they are going to accept the changes that exist in a bill. The way to do that is to have the Minister of Health, not the Minister of Justice, bring in a full, properly researched bill that would deal with all areas of the selling of sperm, eggs and embryos, and the reproductive processes that are being discovered through science. Let us do our homework on this.

It is interesting. Normally we would have the reverse scenario where opposition members would be demanding that the government bring forward a bill. Instead they are saying we should support this particular bill, even though it does not go far enough. It is just opposition politics.

I have not heard anyone in this place say they support the cloning of human beings. Everyone is basically saying that the member's bill is the right way to go, but it does not go far enough. We think it should go further.

I quite agree with members opposite that the voluntary moratorium is not sufficient. It does not go nearly far enough.

This bill would indeed amend the Criminal Code. That is really the crux of the problem and the concern that we have on this side.

Rather than deal with the merits of the proposed prohibitions in the bill, I want to compare this bill to Bill C-47.

Similar prohibitions were contained in separate legislation, as was mentioned by other members, back in 1996. If it was not for the fact that the election came about that bill likely would be in place today. It was a dramatically more comprehensive bill than the one that is before us.

The Criminal Code contains provisions for general application. They apply to everyone and are aimed at keeping the peace and ensuring individual conduct is not a threat to the maintenance of a civilized society. However, what we are trying to do here is use the Criminal Code in an inappropriate way.

From the perspective that I have outlined, the code is not the appropriate vehicle for the prohibitions component of a comprehensive management regime in the complex area of scientific and medical procedures and research. The proper place, in my submission, is for all of this to be wrapped up and put into a principal piece of legislation that could then go to the health committee. It would then be taken across the country for input, for discussion, and parliament could then enact the bill.

Perhaps some of the amendments I have heard other members talk about should be in the bill. Perhaps there should be a way of addressing those concerns. But by simply passing a half-baked private member's bill that does not go far enough we will lose the opportunity that is before parliament.

The real opportunity here is to set the direction for the moral infrastructure of our society. Do we really want to cross that line that I have heard other members mention? Everyone says no, but let us make sure that no means no, that in this particular case we are indeed dotting the i 's, crossing the t 's and going far enough to ensure that we have covered all areas of the human reproductive system and all areas of scientific study of the human reproductive system.

When separate legislation containing these prohibitions against certain practices related to the new reproductive and genetic technologies was introduced in this place the intention was expressed to introduce further legislation to add to the regulatory controls. I would suggest that is very critical. The bill does not deal with the regulatory controls that I think will be so necessary to make this effective.

Those controls would provide a comprehensive management regime for many years for NRGTs. That made it clear at that time that it was not an appropriate subject for a Criminal Code amendment.

I have to ask hon. members opposite why the push all of a sudden. Is it just because it happens to have wound its way back to the surplus of the legislative agenda that they see fit to push this through? Or, would they not agree that it would be more appropriate to take a step back, to make sure that we are indeed dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's.

I would suggest that this ongoing management regime is a critical issue for the future of all Canadians. A major component of that regime was to be the issuance of licences for acceptable practices when it came to these reproductive technologies.

There are also health and safety issues which were to be prominent in the principles guiding the issuance of those licences. I think all Canadians would understand it is important that the scientific community has an opportunity to have input in a direct way with the parliamentary community through the health committee to deal with the issues of health and safety. It is absolutely critical that takes place. Under the bill that would not occur.

We believe this regulatory structure would also maintain information registries and help surveillance systems on various aspects. The bottom line, from what I can see and what I have said here, it seems clear to me, is that any proposed prohibition would find its proper place in the integrated structure of separate principal legislation sponsored by the government and containing a comprehensive management regime for the NRGTs rather than being put inappropriately in the Criminal Code.

For that reason I will be opposing the bill and hopefully looking forward to the government introducing a bill that we will all be able to support.

[Francophone Games, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week my good friend Don Cherry commented on federal funding arrangements for the 2001 Francophone Games.

Can the government house leader please tell this House if contributions will indeed be made toward these games? If so, will this money be used to bring foreign athletes to Canada? Why do we not fund similar events in the same way?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the member to put words in my mouth. I did not say at any time that the solution to the GST issue is to harmonize. What I said is, that is indeed what happened in some parts of this country, particularly on the east coast. It is something that has been rejected in the province of Ontario, which is the largest province. It does a tremendous amount of business. That is because the business community has said “Don't make more changes to the tax system which are going to drive up our costs so we will have to try to keep up with you”.

I said that if we could lower the rate of the GST, businesses would like that.

The fact of the matter is that this government did make a promise and that promise was to eliminate the $42 billion deficit. We have done that. We have balanced the books. We have started to pay down the debt and we will start to relieve the tax burden on Canadians.

It is the Canadian people who have paid the price, who have suffered and who have worked with this government to abolish the deficit and start paying down the debt.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share the phone log of my office. Of course I have had a few calls about that. I had those calls when I was in the provincial legislature. Who likes paying taxes? We would all like to reduce taxes. However, until we are able to get the books of this country balanced, which is what this government has been doing since 1993, how can we possibly talk about taxes?

Let us take a look at what happened in Ontario. The Ontario government came in with a huge deficit and a huge debt and automatically reduced provincial income taxes by 30%. Those taxes have come down by about 22%, with more still to come. What is the outcome of that? If we decrease taxes before we get rid of our deficit and start paying down the debt, then we have to take it from somewhere.

People can say that health care has not been cut in that great province, but it is nonsense. If we talk to the people lying in beds and cots in emergency departments we will see exactly where the 30% tax cut has come from.

Let us do it with a balance. On the weekend, the Prime Minister said that one of the things we want to do, in addition to supporting health care, is to look at reducing taxes. I am confident we will do that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

A little. It hurt but I got over it. I would not be here if I did not get over it.

This is what we have done, what is in the budget and what we are talking about today. We have said enough of the overspending. The $42 billion deficit is history but we are not going back to the days where we could spend on any kind of program, social or otherwise. We have to live within the means of this country. Canadians understand that. I would have liked it if we could have given more in the form of tax decreases but I believe that is coming.

Everyone seems to want to talk about the conference of this weekend which was a great success. Imagine saying that backbenchers should have the courage to get up and criticize the Prime Minister. He only got 90% voter approval from our party. I happen to be a proud member of the Liberal Party. I think I was listening to the grassroots when 90.19% of the people at that convention gave a ringing endorsement to the Prime Minister, the leadership and the plans put in place by this government.

Help me to understand what we in the backbench are supposed to criticize. Members can be assured that we fight within caucus, we fight within committees for things we believe in but why would we criticize our Prime Minister for bringing in the Canada millennium scholarship fund? I guess members opposite do not want to support students. We heard, we listened, we saw the demonstrations, we saw the students taking over the bank in downtown Toronto, we saw them marching on legislatures around the country saying give them an opportunity to survive while they learn. They cannot be expected to come out of post-secondary education with debts of $30,000 and $40,000 and not give them some opportunity for relief.

What did we do? We brought in some tax relief for students who graduate with debt. We brought in interest relief. We even went as far as to say that if the circumstances warrant, there is a process in place to forgive the debt.

The socialist answer to post-secondary education is that it should be free. There should be no obligation for any of the participants to pay for it at all. It should become part of the social safety net. Most Canadians, certainly those I represent, would totally reject that idea.

If one takes a look at the cost of education in Canada, there is no question that it is a burden on students. They do have to work hard to get through. The tuition fees for a world class university in Ontario such as the University of Toronto, York University, Guelph, McMaster and Western in London are about $3,800 a year. These are post-secondary education institutions which are second to none in the world.

However, if we were in a university in the beloved Reform Party's United States of America, we would be spending between $30,000 and $50,000 on tuition. We do not have that situation in this country. However, even though the students have to struggle and work at part time jobs, they wind up with a debt.

Most Canadians would hope that the debt would be manageable and the opportunity would be there for students to pay down their debt once they had jobs and became productive members of society by earning money and paying taxes. That is what this government believes.

This budget has clearly shown that we believe in a balance that creates incentives and jobs for young Canadians. We want to ensure that our young people have a chance to learn in order to earn money and pay back what they had to borrow while they learned. That is not radical, centre, left, right or anything. It just makes darn good sense. I know that Canadian youth will benefit from this millennium scholarship fund and from the financial leadership of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of this government for many years to come.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

It does not hurt, it is ridiculous. It is not true. The member opposite chirped and I will respond to him because I actually intended to raise the issue. I am not afraid to talk about the GST brought in by Brian Mulroney.

Business people in my riding will say please stop already with all the changes. “I have already converted all my cash registers and my accounting procedures and my ledger sheets. I already have a system in place to handle the debits and the credits on the GST. I would not mind if you would lower the rate to make the cashflow a little easier but please do not go through another major overhaul”.

We have attempted to harmonize and we have successfully done so in eastern Canada. The response in Ontario from the Chamber of Commerce, the retail associations and the consumer was do not do that, it will just to complicate business lives.

I hear members talk about great success in other parts of this country. I spent five years suffering in opposition as I watched Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren attempt to spend their way to prosperity. Imagine, they attempted to intentionally spend $10 billion more than they were bringing in so they could run deficits and then increase the total debt of that province to the point where there was a very serious problem. Now the other extreme has come in. They can pretend to be Tories in there but the reality is they are closer to their Reform cousins. It is only because they made a deal not to set up a Reform Party in Ontario that the Reform backed off, Harris was elected and now he has gone to the other extreme.