Mac Harb

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from my colleague. The House of Commons is the highest court in the land. We have debated this issue day in and day out, month in and month out, on a regular basis. Today in the House we are listening to my colleagues on the opposition side try to put on record any kind of evidence that would suggest the Prime Minister has done anything other than serve his constituents in the Grand-Mère affair.

The day we as members of parliament stop calling and writing on our constituents' behalf to the administration in the Government of Canada, the private sector, banks, crown corporations or whomever, none of us will get elected. Would my colleague not agree with that? Our job as members of parliament is to stand up for our constituents and act on their behalf. The day I stop doing that is the day I should stop serving as a member of parliament. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done to create jobs in his constituency and defend the interests of his constituents.

I am not interested in seeing another public inquiry waste millions of dollars and at the end of the day hear nothing new other than what we have read in the National Post and heard from some of my colleagues. It has added nothing to the debate and has only wasted the time of the House of Commons and of Canadians.

Eighty-one per cent of Canadians are telling us to move on and talk about issues that are important to them such as softwood lumber, farming, fisheries and the economy. Those are the issues that are important to Canadians and the issues they want us to talk about. For the public interest, we should move on. We should have the debate today, vote on it and then kill the issue. We can then begin to talk about the issues that are important to Canadians. That is what they elected us for. We had an election on this issue. The people have voted and they told the Prime Minister that they trust him. Does he not agree?

[Financial Information Strategy, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, as part of its overall strategy to improve accountability and improve fiscal management and transparency, the Government of Canada undertook to launch what we call a financial information strategy. It set the date at the time to be April 1, 2001.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the government fulfilled its commitment in implementing a financial information strategy.

[Softwood Lumber, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the current softwood lumber trade dispute between Canada and the United States.

Yesterday the subcommittee on international trade tabled a report that calls on and supports government action to vigorously defend Canada's interests under international laws.

We also call on the government to appoint a special envoy with the aim of developing unified strategy for the whole country. It is critical that Canada speak in a unified voice on this file.

I congratulate the minister and his department for his leadership and hard work on behalf of our industries.

I would also like to congratulate my fellow committee members and the 120 members of the House who have signed their names in support of free and fair trade on softwood lumber.

There is still time for those other members who would like to sign on to this report.

[Committees Of The House, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the issue of softwood lumber. This represents the first report of the subcommittee on international trade disputes and investments.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite frankly surprised by what my colleague has just said here in this House. I have to remind him that the talks currently being held do not run counter to what we have. At the present time, we are members of the World Trade Organization. The majority of countries belong to it. This agreement that the countries of the Americas, including Canada, the United States and Mexico, are in the process of negotiating, is in keeping with the World Trade Organization, in the final analysis. It is not out of line with it.

What this arrangement will in the end give workers, in Quebec and elsewhere, is the opportunity to do even better, to have a better quality of life. It has nothing to do with sovereignty. My colleague knows that full well. In Europe, we now have over 12, 14 or 15 countries with different languages, cultures and histories, that are discussing not just political union, but also economic union.

Here in the House of Commons, there is still a small minority, in Quebec and in Canada, that continues to talk about the issue of sovereignty, even though the majority of Quebecers have already said, more than once—two, three and four times—that the only things they are interested in are a good quality of life and a good justice system, as well as jobs and education for their children.

They have said this several times, but my colleague here is talking as though Quebecers had already voted for their own country. The answer is no. They have already voted no several times. They want to continue to live chez eux , in the place they call home, which is Canada. The place they call home is Quebec, it is Ontario, it is North America, it is the whole world. We are all members of the same family. I am sure that my colleague agrees.

Would he give us his opinion on that?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague referred to problems. I just want to ask her a question and hear what she has to say. I want to know if she agrees that the only problem we face is the problem of isolation. Isolation is the enemy of progress.

Lastly, free trade is an irreversible phenomenon. At the end of the day, we have to open new borders to our products, whether these products are from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, or another province of Canada. We must open borders for these products.

An individual who works in Quebec City or Montreal will enjoy direct benefits once we are able to sell products from Quebec City or Montreal in Mexico or Chile.

If we are concerned about defending the rights of workers, be they in Quebec or another province of Canada, we must realize that we will be able to defend them much more effectively in a North American context, where there are more than two, three or four countries, than in isolation, whether in Quebec or in Canada.

I want to hear my colleague's reply and her comments on the following: that free trade in the end means freedom for workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Request For Emergency Debate, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing today. The opposition is creating an issue that, frankly, does not exist.

It has had an opportunity to debate this issue for over two years now in question period. It has had the opportunity to debate this issue during an election campaign. It has had an opportunity to debate this issue on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation station, as well as in the media. It has been holding news conferences day in and day out. It has had ample opportunity to bring the issue to the attention of the Canadian public. It has had the chance every day between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock to debate this issue.

[Kids Help Phone, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Kids Help Phone is Canada's only national bilingual 24 hour counselling and referral service for children and youth. Every day Kids Help Phone answers approximately 1,000 calls from children across the country at 1-800-668-6868.

Last year over 9,500 children in the local area, including many kids in my riding of Ottawa Centre, turned to Kids Help Phone for assistance.

This Sunday, March 25, the Ottawa chapter of Kids Help Phone and Autodesk Canada present “An Evening with Oscar”, an Academy Awards party in support of Kids Help Phone. Similar events will be happening in Halifax, St. John's Newfoundland and Vancouver.

For more information on being a part of the glitz and glamour of Oscar night in Ottawa, I invite members to call 860-1529 and support their local chapter of Kids Help Phone.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, we do have a long term policy. Negotiations have been going on for years. We had the GATT, under which the rules of law were set up for member countries. That was followed by the World Trade Organization, the free trade agreement and then by NAFTA. These organizations represent hundreds of countries around the world. The rules of law are there for everyone to follow.

What we are saying on this side of the House is that at the end of the day the long term solution my colleague has called for is for everyone to respect the law of the land.

We have a situation now where some member countries are not respecting the law of the land. The policy of the government is to ensure that member countries respect the rules of law and do not create unfair subsidies that put our farmers at a disadvantage. We must fight and continue to fight on their behalf and we must provide them with the support they need, which is exactly what we are doing.

However, at the end of the day, and I repeat this one more time, there is no amount of money that will solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is for everyone to play by the same rules. As long as people from other corners, doors or windows do not play by the rules, the situation of inequity will repeat itself. We will see our farmers in front of the House of Commons and elsewhere protesting and asking for assistance.

I will mention another point to my colleague. In any operation or business, every time there is a crisis, whether it is financial or otherwise, inefficient operations will fall victim to it. What we must do is ensure we have a support mechanism to assist those who are in need.

That is exactly what the government has done on a number of occasions. I will not repeat this for the record, but speakers before me have, and speakers after me will, put on the record specific programs the government has put in place to support farming communities. Through such programs we will continue to work with farmers to ensure they can support themselves and their families.

However for my colleague to say that we do not have a long term policy is grossly unfair because we do in fact have long term policies.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my deepest apologies. It was an honest oversight on my part. It is difficult for a government member to differentiate between the old party and the new party.

The policy of the Canadian Alliance Party speaks very much to the opposite of what the motion is speaking to today. As I told a colleague on the other side earlier, it is quite clear and quite unequivocal that in essence it contradicts what is in the motion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

It is fair game when we have consistency before us, but when we see situations like this one it is quite frustrating because we do not know where that party sits on the issue. At the end of the day the issue before us is an issue of fairness. It really has nothing to do with partisanship. It has nothing to do with the political affiliation of one member or another. It has to do with the issue of fairness.

We have a situation where the farming communities across Canada are telling us that they are faced with a situation where farmers in other countries, in particular south of the border, are getting unfair subsidies. As a result they are putting our farming communities at a disadvantage.

This is an absolutely fair statement and fair game. Ultimately at the end of the day it is imperative that those in the farming community are playing with the same rules. Therefore, if subsidies are being put on the table by other countries, it does not necessarily mean that we will have to bring in more subsidies. It means, though, that we will have to do our utmost to ensure a level playing field.

In the meantime what should we do? Should we let our farmers leave? Should we let our farmers suffer the inequity that exists while we are fighting the injustice that is taking place elsewhere, or should we fight for them and at the same time do something to support them?

That is exactly what the government has done. Every business venture and every trading nation has to play by the rules set out by the World Trade Organization and by the rules set out previously under the free trade agreement and eventually under NAFTA. We all have to abide by and to follow the same rules. We have to subscribe to those rules and we have to ensure that our industry subscribes to those rules.

When we see situations such as we are seeing now in the farming communities, or when we see situations such as we will see at the end of this month with the softwood lumber issue, we get frustrated. We as elected officials feel that we have an obligation to do what is right and not just to correct what is wrong. This is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and what the Minister for International Trade have been doing consistently over the past few months to address the whole issue of inequities.

What is enough? The minister just announced a support package for farming communities to balance the imbalance that exists. What is enough? Frankly I would say that $500 million may not solve the problems of the farming communities for good. Even $1 billion will probably not be enough to solve the problems of the farming community for good. What will solve those problems is the removal of unfair subsidies from anywhere in the globe where farming products and farming services are provided. That is the only way for us to ensure fairness.

In the absence of that we have to be exceptionally careful not to create the impression that we have a well with an endless amount of resources into which we dip every time there is a problem and wait for the problem to go away.

We have to be consistently persistent in trying to speak out on behalf of farming communities, as the minister and the government have done. We have to consistently seek justice when it comes to the World Trade Organization and NAFTA to ensure a level playing field.

I am not saying that we have to eliminate subsidies all at once and for good. However there are others who have already embarked on eliminating subsidies altogether. That has happened in New Zealand. Others may also follow suit and eliminate subsidies altogether so the market can decide.

If I were asked as an elected official from an urban riding whether or not I am calling for the removal of subsidies, I would say no.

That cannot be done unilaterally and cannot be done by one country in the absence of action by others. We must do it collectively. As nations we must collectively set the rules of law and ensure those rules are respected by member countries.

It is fairly hurtful when we see situations like the one the farming community is faced with now. To a large extent it is being discriminated against. I commend the minister of agriculture who is very knowledgeable about the file. I also commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade for speaking out on behalf of farmers. That is responsible action on the part of the government.

When the official opposition says if we throw another $400 million at the problem it will go away, I challenge it to tell me the exact amount the government must put on the table to make the problem go away. No sum of money will make the problem go away as long as other nations outbid us and subsidize more than us.

At the end of the day what is required is corrective action like the government has done: work with farm communities and leaders and speak out on the international scene. We must bring sanity to the system so that farmers around the world will play by the same rules. When they play by the rules, they know that all other farmers in every other country are also playing by the same rules.

We have an unjust situation that is made worse by the fact that some member countries of the World Trade Organization are not playing by the rules. That is the issue before us. Rather than telling the government it is onside in the fight to ensure equity and a rule of law that is fair across the board, the official opposition says that if we throw more money at the problem it will go away. That will not work in the long run. It might be a bit of a band-aid solution in the short term, but ultimately it is not the answer.